There are a number of claims available to those injured on amusement park rides, but the two most common are negligence and product liability.

Negligence – This type of claim is generally the result of carelessness, recklessness or inattention of a park or ride employee. For example, the ride operator may abruptly stop the ride or incorrectly latch a seatbelt. One of the leading contributors to park injuries and fatalities is improper operation of the ride. In a standard negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the law required the defendant to be reasonably careful, that the defendant was not careful, and that this carelessness caused the plaintiff to be injured.

An amusement park is responsible for the actions of its employees, whether it is from the employee doing something or their failing to do something. Some examples of this type of negligence include failure to maintain the equipment in a safe condition (rust and corrosion), failure to post warning signs (health risks and size/weight requirements), improper training of operators, failure to inspect the ride, worker inattention (using cell phones or eating while operating) and failure to properly check restraints or instruct riders, etc.

Product Liability – This type of claim results when an accident is caused by a defect in the ride or its components, or due to improper maintenance, lack of or inadequate repair, improper operation, inspection or use. For example, the faulty design of a lap bar may cause it to unlatch, leading to the rider falling to the ground. Mechanical failure of the ride is one of the leading contributors to amusement park injuries and fatalities. If there are structural or design defects in the ride this could give rise to claims against the manufacturer of the ride or a component part for defective product or workmanship. In such cases, the plaintiff(s) would need to prove that the structure, equipment or component part was defective and that the defect was the direct cause of the injury or death to the victim. The Fire Ball incident in Ohio would fall into this category.

However, there are some states holding to an assumption of risk rule. If the park or employee can show that the victim assumed the risks of a certain ride, the park won't be held liable. This assumption of risk would not be a defense for unknown risks, such as those described under product liability. However, if someone knows that participating in an act or event is inherently dangerous, but chooses to participate anyway, then that person is said to have 'assumed the risk' associated with that activity. The key here is that the victim must have been aware of the risks involved in order to assume them.

If a victim is injured as a result of not complying with posted requirements for the ride, this non-compliance may be used as a defense by the amusement park. Examples include a rider not complying with the posted age, weight, or height requirements, or when a rider unlatches their seatbelt on a fast moving ride and falls or is thrown from the ride, or they voluntarily jump the ride, then there would be no justification for a negligence or product liability claim.

While a carrier cannot prevent individuals from not adhering to the rules of a ride, it can do solid underwriting and loss control in order to avoid exposing themselves to possible catastrophic claims. While loss control surveyors are not expert ride inspectors, having loss control ensure proper completion of ride inspections according to state requirements by a properly certified inspector, verification of properly trained employees to operate the ride and know emergency and safety procedures, and completing a visual inspection can help ensure the safety of the ride. Applications are extensive and underwriters need to review them carefully and be familiar with the risks involved. Amusement rides are a unique exposure, and insuring them requires careful review and analysis of risk.