Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an action for damages for wrongful death brought by the personal representative of the Estate of Claudia Demers, on behalf of the Estate and on behalf of the heirs of Claudia Demers against various separate and distinct corporations affiliated with The Universal Co. One of the Defendants is Universal World Co., the admitted owner and operator of Universal Theme Park.
One of the theories of liability alleged against Universal World Co. is based upon common carrier liability pursuant to Civil Code §2100 and §2101. Plaintiff will demonstrate how common carrier liability attaches to Universal World Co. with respect to the Dinosaur Attraction.
PLAINTIFF HAS PLED SUFFICIENT FACTS IN ITS COMPLAINT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 430.10.
In the fourth and fifth causes of action, dealing with common carrier liability, Plaintiff has alleged that certain of the Defendants operated the Dinosaur Attraction at Universal Theme Park. The Dinosaur Attraction is described as consisting of a vehicle, referred to as a dynamic ride vehicle, which is used to enhance the sensation of vehicular motion and travel that passengers in the vehicle experience. Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint states that the vehicle used in the Dinosaur Attraction is used to transport passengers while, at the same time, providing them with entertainment and thrill. The configuration of the vehicle resembles an off-road jeep. The vehicle moves along a predetermined path on a track.
Paragraph 49 further states that the ride provided by the Dinosaur Attraction vehicle was for the transport, use and enjoyment of Universal Theme Park guests and patrons.
Today, California’s pleading rules are construed quite liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Fineberg v. Niekerk (1985) 175 CA3d 935, 939. Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action were properly pled, alleging that Defendants are common carriers and thus should be held accountable at the highest standard of care. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint contains sufficient causes of actions. Plaintiff need only show that the facts within the four corners of the complaint are sufficient to bring a claim. Plaintiff has done so. (See Part 3 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.