Knoebels Amusement Resort faces a six-figure lawsuit following an incident on its Giant Ferris wheel in which a California mother sustained serious injuries while exiting the ride while holding her young child. Elizabeth Burruss filed a civil complaint in Pennsylvania District Court on July 1, 2025, alleging that her foot became caught on the angled loading platform as she was stepping down from the ride on July 28, 2024, causing her to fall with severe consequences. The lawsuit seeks over $75,000 in damages for Elizabeth’s injuries, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, plus an additional claim by her husband Shane for loss of consortium damages exceeding $75,000, bringing the total demand to over $150,000.
The injury occurred at one of Pennsylvania’s major tourist attractions, a family-friendly amusement park that operates the Giant Ferris wheel as a signature ride. The Burruss family’s lawsuit centers on allegations that Knoebels failed to maintain safe exit conditions, did not provide appropriate assistance to guests managing small children while exiting, and did not offer adequate warnings about the specific hazards presented by the loading platform’s design. Because the damages claimed exceed six figures, the case will proceed in federal court rather than through arbitration, a procedural distinction that affects both how the case will be handled and what precedent it may set.
Table of Contents
- What Happened at Knoebels’ Giant Ferris Wheel Exit?
- What Specific Safety Failures Does the Lawsuit Allege?
- Why Does the Dollar Amount Put This Case in Federal Court?
- What Are the Typical Hazards of Amusement Park Exit Platforms?
- What Does Premises Liability Law Require of Amusement Parks?
- How Do Other Amusement Parks Address Exit Safety?
- What This Case Reveals About Guest Accountability and Park Responsibility?
What Happened at Knoebels’ Giant Ferris Wheel Exit?
The incident that prompted the lawsuit occurred on July 28, 2024, when Elizabeth Burruss was exiting Knoebels’ Giant Ferris wheel while carrying her child. According to the complaint, the loading platform features an angled surface that created a hazardous condition for guests disembarking from the ride. As Elizabeth stepped down onto this angled platform, her foot allegedly caught or slipped, causing her to fall with her child in her arms.
The specific design and angle of the exit platform became central to the legal complaint, as the Burruss family’s attorneys argue that this feature created an unreasonable hazard. Ferris wheels at major amusement parks typically have loading and unloading areas that must accommodate thousands of guests annually, ranging from small children to elderly visitors. The Giant Ferris wheel at Knoebels is no exception, and its loading platform must handle continuous foot traffic in various weather conditions and at different times of day when lighting and visibility may vary. The fact that Elizabeth was holding a child while exiting adds a complicating factor—she had reduced stability and balance compared to a guest using both hands to steady herself, yet the platform’s design apparently did not account for this common scenario.
What Specific Safety Failures Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The Burruss family’s legal complaint identifies three primary areas of negligence on the part of Knoebels. First, the park allegedly failed to maintain a level exit surface, instead offering the angled platform that contributed to Elizabeth’s fall. Second, the facility allegedly did not provide adequate assistance or warnings to guests who were managing small children while exiting. Third, Knoebels did not provide sufficient warning signage or verbal instructions about the specific hazards of the exit platform. These allegations touch on fundamental premises of premises liability law: that property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions and to warn of known hazards.
A critical limitation of this type of claim is that amusement parks are not absolute insurers of guest safety. Courts typically recognize that roller coasters, ferris wheels, and similar attractions carry inherent risks that guests assume by choosing to ride. However, the law also recognizes a distinction between inherent risks and negligent failures to maintain safe premises. If a platform is designed in a way that creates unnecessary hazards—particularly for guests with reduced mobility or balance, such as those holding children—a park could be found negligent. The question for the court will be whether the angled loading platform was an inherent design feature that guests should expect, or an unreasonable hazard that could have been prevented through better design or assistance protocols.
Why Does the Dollar Amount Put This Case in Federal Court?
The significance of a six-figure claim extends beyond the amount of money at stake. Under federal diversity jurisdiction rules, civil lawsuits involving parties from different states and claims exceeding $75,000 can be filed in federal court rather than state court. Since Elizabeth and Shane Burruss are California residents and Knoebels is located in Pennsylvania, and their combined damages claim exceeds $150,000, the lawsuit qualifies for federal court proceedings. This distinction carries practical implications: federal courts operate under different procedural rules, have different judges, and may apply different legal standards in some circumstances compared to Pennsylvania state courts.
Federal court proceedings also suggest that arbitration clauses in Knoebels’ guest waivers or terms of service may not apply to claims of this magnitude. Many amusement parks require guests to sign waivers or agree to arbitration before riding, which would typically funnel smaller claims into private arbitration rather than public court litigation. However, the Burruss family’s six-figure claim appears to exceed the threshold at which such provisions might be disputed or set aside. This means the case will proceed through public federal court, creating a matter of public record and potentially generating precedent that could affect how other similar cases are handled.
What Are the Typical Hazards of Amusement Park Exit Platforms?
Exit platforms at major amusement park rides present a unique set of safety challenges that differ from the ride experience itself. Guests are often disoriented, excited, tired, or distracted immediately after exiting a ride. They may be moving quickly, not paying full attention to their footing, or managing luggage, bags, or children. An angled or uneven surface in this context creates a heightened risk that would not exist in a regular retail or commercial setting where guests have more time to orient themselves and adjust their gait.
Comparison to industry practices reveals that many modern amusement parks have invested in level, clearly marked exit platforms with handrails, adequate lighting, and staff positioned to assist guests. Some facilities have added yellow safety tape or anti-slip surfaces to highlight potential hazards. The fact that Knoebels’ Giant Ferris wheel exit was angled rather than level suggests the park may not have adopted these more current safety practices. A limitation to keep in mind is that older attractions may have exit designs that were considered acceptable when originally built but would not meet current safety expectations. The question becomes whether Knoebels had an obligation to retrofit its existing equipment to meet modern standards.
What Does Premises Liability Law Require of Amusement Parks?
Premises liability law imposes a duty on property owners to maintain reasonably safe conditions and to exercise reasonable care in preventing injury to guests. For amusement parks, this duty includes maintaining ride equipment in safe operating condition, providing necessary warnings and instructions, and ensuring that ancillary areas like loading platforms do not present unreasonable hazards. The standard is not absolute safety but rather reasonable safety given the nature of the activity. A guest who chooses to ride a roller coaster assumes certain inherent risks, but the park must not create unnecessary additional hazards through negligent maintenance or design.
A critical warning to understand is that the outcome of the Burruss lawsuit will depend on whether a jury or judge finds that the angled exit platform represented an unreasonable hazard. Knoebels may argue that guests should exercise reasonable care when exiting rides, that the angle was minimal and known to regular park visitors, or that other safety measures were in place. The Burruss family’s attorneys will need to demonstrate that the park knew or should have known about the hazard and had a reasonable opportunity to fix it. A limitation in this type of case is that eyewitness testimony, expert testimony about ride design and safety standards, and competing interpretations of the accident itself can create genuine factual disputes that require a jury trial to resolve.
How Do Other Amusement Parks Address Exit Safety?
Industry standards for exit platform safety have evolved significantly over the past 15 to 20 years, driven by incident reports, insurance claims, and regulatory guidance from the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA). Leading parks have implemented level exit platforms with slip-resistant surfaces, installed handrails on all sides of exit areas, posted clear warning signage about watching your step, and trained staff to be positioned at exits to assist guests who appear unsteady. Some parks have added small ramps instead of abrupt steps, and others use color-coded flooring or tactile warnings to alert guests to potential hazards.
A comparison example shows that many ferris wheels at major regional parks, such as those at large carnival operations or seasonal amusement parks, have upgraded their exit designs within the past decade. These investments reflect both a commitment to safety and a recognition that exit-related injuries create liability exposure. Knoebels’ failure to implement similar measures, if that failure is proven, could weigh heavily in the plaintiff’s favor.
What This Case Reveals About Guest Accountability and Park Responsibility?
The Burruss lawsuit illustrates a fundamental tension in amusement park liability: the balance between guest personal responsibility and operator accountability. When a guest is injured, courts must determine whether the guest failed to exercise reasonable care (comparative negligence) or whether the park’s failure to maintain safe premises was the primary cause. In the Burruss case, the fact that Elizabeth was holding a child while exiting may become central to the analysis—was she unable to steady herself because of the child, or should she have requested assistance or waited until she could put the child down? The case also demonstrates why the dollar amount matters: at six figures, this claim commands serious attention from Knoebels’ insurance carriers and legal team.
Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys will conduct thorough investigations of ride maintenance records, incident reports from the exit area, prior complaints or injuries at that location, and expert testimony about the platform’s design. The litigation will likely span years and involve discovery of extensive documentation. For the Burruss family, the federal court process offers the advantage of a formal, public adjudication but also means they will face a well-resourced defendant with sophisticated legal representation. The complaint names specific failures—the angled surface, lack of assistance, insufficient warnings—which gives their case concrete allegations rather than vague claims of negligence.
- —