Gomez v. Walt Disney Company

35 Cal. 4th 1125 (2005)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gomez v. Walt Disney Company

California Supreme Court
35 Cal. 4th 1125 (2005)

Facts

Christina Moreno was 23 years old when she and her husband traveled from where they lived in Spain to visit Disneyland in California for their honeymoon. While riding the Indiana Jones ride, Moreno was severely injured, suffering a brain injury. Moreno’s injury required multiple surgeries, and she later died. Johana Gomez, who was the administrator of Moreno’s estate, and Moreno’s heirs (plaintiffs) filed a second amended complaint, alleging Moreno’s wrongful death against Walt Disney Company (Disney) (defendant). Gomez alleged that the ride, with its jarring and unpredictable motions, was the proximate cause of Moreno’s extensive injuries. In fact, Gomez asserted that the Indiana Jones ride jostled riders with such ferocity that many people had to receive first aid or treatment at a hospital after riding. Gomez asserted that the bleeding on the brain Moreno experienced after enduring the ride’s sudden directional changes was similar to the injuries seen with shaken-baby syndrome. Gomez’s complaint asserted various causes of action, including common-carrier liability, asserting that under California law, Civil Code § 2100, Disney was subject to a duty of the highest care and attentiveness because the Indiana Jones ride was a vehicle utilized to transport people while offering thrills. Gomez also asserted a claim for strict liability under Civil Code § 2101, asserting that Disney neglected to offer a vehicle to riders that was safe and fit to transport people. Disney responded by filing a demurrer to Gomez’s complaint, seeking dismissal of the claims alleged under §§ 2100 and 2101. The demurrer was sustained by a superior court without permission to amend the complaint again, holding that operators of attractions at amusement parks, such as roller coasters, were not common carriers because the purpose of the rides was for thrills and people were only consequentially transported. An appellate court reversed, holding that Disney was a common carrier in relation to the Indiana Jones ride for which it made public offers to carry people. Disney sought review, which the California Supreme Court granted.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Moreno, J.)

Dissent (Chin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership