This action arises from injuries sustained by Christopher Fabricant, a 52-year-old pelvic surgeon, while riding the Kingda Ka rollercoaster at the Six Flags amusement park located in Jackson, New Jersey.
Defendants challenged the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ expert Edward M. Pribonic, who was retained to “conduct an engineering review and mechanical analysis to determine the mechanisms by which Fabricant received the injuries to his spine, as the result of riding on the Kingda Ka roller coaster,” and, if necessary, opine on “the kinematics or movements that created the injury mechanisms.”
Engineering Expert Witness
Edward Mark Pribonic holds a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree from the University of Pittsburgh; he is a registered professional engineer and is licensed in California. He specializes in “engineering design, rehabilitation, safety improvement, maintenance, ride safety inspections and accident investigation in the amusement ride industry.” Pribonic has held engineering related positions at Walt Disney Imagineering and Disneyland, has provided consultation to theme parks and ride manufacturers pertaining to ride equipment design, and has taught ride safety and inspection courses to California ride inspectors and to industry members. He has previously been qualified as an expert in the field of engineering in approximately twenty cases in both state and federal court in New Jersey.
Discussion by the Court
In his July 15, 2019 declaration, Pribonic opined that the seats and restraints on Kingda Ka were standardized and mass-produced.
Pribonic’s opinions regarding functionality, design, and structure are based solely on a visual comparison of photographs pulled from the internet that purport to be other Intamin and Intaride rollercoasters. Pribonic did not identify the dimensions, designs, or the nature of the materials of the seats, restraints, and/or locking mechanisms in reaching his conclusions. Moreover, Pribonic did not identify any testable hypothesis, standard, or technique used to formulate his conclusions.
As a result, the Court found that the opinions set forth in Pribonic’s July 15, 2019 declaration were inadmissible as they were unreliable and constituted net opinions.
Given the technical expertise being offered here, the Court found that Pribonic’s opinion is impermissibly speculative because it is grounded only in his superficial observations of seat exteriors through photographs. Moreover, Pribonic’s declaration is not based on any methodology, but rather his own intuition.
Held
The Court held that any testimony regarding the opinions set forth in Edward Pribonic’s July 15, 2019 declaration failed to meet the Daubert standard and was therefore inadmissible.
Key Takeaway:
The Court noted that an expert may focus upon personal knowledge or experience rather than scientific foundations. But even considering Pribonic’s experience in the amusement park industry and his time as an engineer, the Court found that his opinions in the July 15, 2019 declaration fell within the category of subjective belief and unsupported speculation.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Fabricant Et Al V. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:19cv12900 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Jersey |
| Order Date: | July 02, 2025 |
Leave a Reply