Parents sue over autistic son's drowning death

[Sportster]

. . .

 

[Judge]

I find it troubling- yet not surprising that the media appears to be capitalizing on legal ignorance. Four words to contemplate. "Premises liability"and "amusement parks".

In most states amusement parks have an elevated degree of premises liability when it comes to the care, custody and control of patrons on the premises, apart from the most notable concern of amusement park rides themselves. Patrons are considered "invitees" which legally raises a park's inherent responsibility.

The fact that the victim was on the spectrum may or may not have contributed to his demise and may or may not enhance a settlement figure. That's just a legal strategy designed to monetarily enhance whatever settlement is likely to be decided upon behind closed doors. Also as incentive to keep the defendant's insurer from considering taking such a case to trial, where they would likely lose. Given the loss doesn't appear to involve any products, manufacturing or design considerations the doctrine of strict liability is not likely to be a factor in such a case. Good for the amusement park, but in no way does it diminish their basic premises liability.

This is a 90-year old operation which is likely well insured with an excess or umbrella policy extending their liability into several million dollars. A factor many civil juries routinely take into consideration and one that insurers (in a specialty market) are keenly aware of in avoiding such a case from going to trial.

In essence the amusement park is on the hook. It's just a matter of for how much. Whether the fact that the victim was on the spectrum might enhance the case and increase a settlement figure. Or not. But few competent insurers are willing to take the loss of any child to trial regardless of whether the victim was autistic and the plaintiffs are likely to be Muslims. No matter how much Fox News wants that to happen.

Such circumstances reflect classic reasons why the insurer I once worked for did not write insurance for amusement parks. It remains a speciality-market that is heavily reinsured for the obvious reasons. If someone is injured or killed on the premises, the insurer is going to pay out. It's just a matter of how many zeroes are written on a check, usually behind closed doors.

 

[Momo]

I didn't think autism would affect one's ability to swim, perhaps the child didn't know how to swim in the first place? Or at least, not very well. Learning how to swim is like learning how to walk, maybe it would be more difficult for an autistic child to learn, but it is possible. I don't think autism should be blamed for such a tragedy.

 

[Judge]

I don't think their bringing up autism is anything more but an attempt to leverage the case of premises liability. Especially in the event the case is taken to court. That it probably just amounts to legal maneuvering and little else to enhance a settlement.

The real issue remains premises liability, for which the amusement park cannot escape in whole or in part given the child died as an invitee.