Ashley Martinez vs. Six Flags Magic Mountain, Inc.

Case Background

On July 29, 2019, Ashley D. Martinez filed a premises liability lawsuit against Six Flags Magic Mountain Inc. alleging negligence after a ride had supposedly started with no warning causing her injuries. The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Judges Gregory W. Alarcon, Lisa R. Jaskol, Daniel M. Crowley, and Cherol J. Nellon presided over this case. [Case number: 19STCV26394]

Cause

On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff Ashley D. Martinez (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Martinez”) visited Defendant Six Flags Magic Mountain (“Six Flags”) in Valencia, California. While there, she sustained physical injuries. The cause of her injuries was the Defendants’ failure to maintain a safe environment for their guests.

The Defendants did not secure the ride known as Yosemite Sam’s Flight School. They allowed the ride to operate without ensuring that all riders were safely mounted. Consequently, the ride began moving unexpectedly and directly led to the injuries that Plaintiff suffered.

Injury

Plaintiff Martinez suffered injuries in her lower extremities as a result of Defendant’s negligence and recklessness.

Damages

Plaintiff experienced wage loss and had to pay for hospital and medical expenses. She also suffered general damages and faced a loss of earning capacity. She sought relief in the form of general and special damages.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Ashley D. Martinez
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Valencia Everardo
  • Defendant(s): Six Flags Magic Mountain Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Amaro Michael Lee | Sanaz Cherazaie

Claims

The cause of her injuries was the Defendants’ failure to maintain a safe environment for their guests, which constituted negligence on the part of Six Flags.

Defense

Defendant, Six Flags Magic Mountain, LLC, responded to the complaint as follows:

First Affirmative Defense (Comparative Negligence)

1. Defendant claimed that any injuries Plaintiff sustained were caused in part by her own negligence.

Second Affirmative Defense (Assumption of Risk)
2. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s injuries if any occurred, were due to her assumption of risk.

Third Affirmative Defense
3. The Defendant stated that the complaint, along with each cause of action, did not present sufficient facts to support a valid claim.

Fourth Affirmative Defense (Statute of Limitations)
4. Defendant asserted that the California Code of Civil Procedure barred the complaint.

Fifth Affirmative Defense (Fault of Others)
5. The Defendant claimed that other individuals or entities, whether or not involved in the case, acted negligently. This negligence contributed to the Plaintiff’s injuries. If the court awarded any judgment to the Plaintiff, it should be shared among all negligent parties and offset against any judgment against the defendant.

Sixth Affirmative Defense (No Notice)
6. The Defendant argued that it had no knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition and, therefore, could not be held liable.

Seventh Affirmative Defense (Proposition 51 – Joint and Several Liability)
7. Defendant asserted that under Civil Code Section 1431.2, its liability for non-economic losses would be several, not joint. The defendant would only be responsible for its proportionate share of non-economic damages.

Eighth Affirmative Defense (Medical Expenses Paid vs. Billed)
8. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff could only recover medical bills that had been paid, not those merely billed, citing Howell v. Hamilton Meats and related case law.

Jury Verdict

On May 30, 2024, the trial for this commenced in Department 96 of the LA Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courtroom. On June 03, 2024, the LA jury returned a defense verdict. They found that Six Flags was not liable for negligence.

On the same day, Judge Gregory W. Alarcon passed a judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request