Six Flags May Avoid Liability in Teacher's Fatal Roller Coaster Fall
Legal experts suggest Six Flags Over Georgia could escape blame for Hassan Kariem's death if park operations adhered to state regulations.
Six Flags Over Georgia may not be held liable for the fatal plunge of a teacher from the "Goliath" roller coaster, provided the park can demonstrate compliance with state laws, according to legal analysis.
Hassan Kariem, 42, died Monday after reportedly being ejected from his seat on the 200-foot-tall Goliath hypercoaster. He fell in front of other riders after a mishap involving his safety restraint.
"The key question is not just what went wrong, but also if someone knew — or should have known — what could have gone wrong," said Daniel Adamson, a lawyer with Georgia-based Dixon-Adamson, which specializes in theme park litigation.
Following the incident, Six Flags temporarily closed Goliath and nine other coasters across six of its parks. Investigators are examining the ride's design, maintenance records, and operational procedures.
Adamson noted that if Six Flags can prove it followed all applicable codes and regulations, the park might avoid liability. "That's the biggest thing … was this a preventable tragedy?" he asked. "And did they have any knowledge of [problems]? Were there prior safety complaints? You want to look at the inspection logs, the maintenance records."
Theme parks in Georgia operate under a standard of "ordinary care" towards guests, a legal precedent established by a 1982 state supreme court ruling. This differs from the "extraordinary diligence" required of mass transit operators like bus or train companies, making it potentially more challenging to sue amusement parks for injuries or fatalities.
However, Adamson clarified that "ordinary care" typically covers incidents like minor discomfort or motion sickness on a ride, not the ejection of a passenger at high speed. "When somebody boards a roller coaster, they accept the thrill of the ride, not the risk of being thrown from it," he stated. The park would need to argue that Kariem assumed the risk of such an unlikely event.
"It's really context specific," Adamson added. "And you have to look at the facts of each case. … What reasonable duty of ordinary care has to be considered in the context of the activity?"