Six Flags Retires X2 Amid Injury Lawsuits: What California Law Says About Amusement-Park Ride Liability

On September 29, 2026, Six Flags Magic Mountain announced that it will permanently retire X2. The park stated that more than 16 million guests have ridden the attraction since it reopened as X2 in 2008, that the ride consistently passed a multitude of safety tests, and that it chose to close the ride because guest confidence had been affected.¹

Retiring a ride is a business decision. It is not an admission of liability, and it does not establish that the ride caused any injury.

Three separate complaints were filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on September 21, 2026: the Greer-Wilkinson matter (Case No. 26STCV29927), the Guillen matter (Case No. 26STCV29908), and the Wilk matter (Case No. 26STCV30013).²³⁴

The complaints allege that the principal injured riders suffered serious injuries after riding X2. They name Six Flags entities and several S&S entities that plaintiffs allege were involved in the ride’s design, manufacture, engineering, servicing, or related functions, and assert theories including product defects, inadequate warnings, negligence and common-carrier liability, premises liability, and related claims. These allegations have not been adjudicated, and no defendant has been found liable.²³⁴

The Associated Press has reported that the ride was closed in July and that a California state investigation remains ongoing. No final agency determination about causation or ride safety should be inferred from the existence of that investigation.⁵

The central legal question for California personal injury claims involving amusement rides is the standard of care. In Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1125, the California Supreme Court held that the operator of a roller coaster or similar amusement-park ride can qualify as a “carrier of persons for reward” under Civil Code sections 2100 and 2101.⁶

Under Civil Code section 2100, a carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for the safe carriage of its passengers. That is a higher standard than the ordinary care most defendants owe, and it is the same framework California applies in other common-carrier liability contexts.⁶

This heightened duty does not make an amusement-park operator automatically liable whenever a rider is injured. A plaintiff still must establish the elements of the particular claim, including causation. The common-carrier rule is not strict liability.

California separately regulates permanent amusement rides through the Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s Amusement Ride and Tramway Unit. The state’s regulatory framework includes operational inspections, annual records audits, safety requirements, and injury and accident reporting.⁷

A ride’s regulatory or inspection history can be relevant, but an inspection does not by itself resolve every issue in a later civil lawsuit. Questions concerning duty, breach, product design, warnings, notice, and causation depend on the evidence and the claims actually presented.

The pending cases potentially involve several distinct legal theories:

These theories are legally different. A claim against a ride operator is not the same as a product claim against a manufacturer, and each has its own elements and defenses. None of them can be assumed from the filing of a lawsuit or the retirement of a ride. Causation in particular, and the related question of damages, is usually decided on medical and technical evidence, as discussed in How Much Is My Personal Injury Case Worth in California?

The X2 litigation is still at an early stage. What makes the dispute legally significant beyond the immediate headlines is California’s treatment of roller-coaster operators as potential carriers of persons for reward — a doctrine that can impose a heightened duty of care while still requiring plaintiffs to prove the remaining elements of their claims.

Mahrouyan Law does not represent any party in the X2 lawsuits, and this article is not a comment on the merits of any claim or defense.