[Prudence]

I've been in "explanation mode" all morning and now I can't resist applying that to this forum.

A "demurrer" (now a 12(b)(6) motion in the federal system) basically says: "even if everything the plaintiff says is true, they don't have a case." It's the "so what?" motion.

History lesson: under the English common law from which our legal systerm derived, a demurrer was a risky motion because you had to actually and irrevocably admit everything the plaintiff alleged in your claim that there was, regardless, no legal cause of action. If you miscalculated and the court ruled against you, the plaintiff then won automatically because you'd already admited everything. I have no idea what the current status of the demurrer is overseas.

You're now ready for the "obscure judicial trivia" category on Jeopardy.

For this case, I imagine Disney was trying to duck (amongst other things) the strict liability issue. As well as make the whole thing go away. No matter how fruitless the case ultimately is, it's bad PR and the plaintiff knows that. It's in the plaintiff's best interest to keep the case moving forward as long as possible, thereby increasing the liklihood of a settlement.

If it does ultimately go to trial, I would imagine that assumption of risk would play a significant role in the defense.

I personally would have sided with the dissent and looked to legislative intent. Courts across the country are by no means in agreement on the interpretation of common carrier statutes. I would draw a distinction between conventional methods of transport (helicopter, elevator, cable car, etc...) and theme park attractions. Is it a bright line distinction? Probably not. But I think a theme park boat attraction is sufficiently distinct from, say, a water taxi that I would not apply the common carrier statute to the attraction.

Plus I think ordinary negligence law should be sufficient. Theme park rides aren't an essential services such as housing or *actual* transportation. If the legislature wants to enact heightened standard of care rules for theme parks then they should do so.