In December 2025, six-year-old Emma Riddle died from injuries sustained in a go-kart accident at an Urban Air Adventure Park in Port St. Lucie, Florida. She was riding with her mother. Because the vehicle had a double-driving seat, there is a dispute as to who was driving.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“FDACS”) investigated the incident and concluded:

• Emma was 12 years too young and 11 inches too short to meet manufacturer specifications for the seat;
• The ride operator failed to perform a required seat-belt verification procedure;
• Neither Emma nor her mother were restrained; and
• The kart exceeded the maximum speed allowed by Urban Air’s corporate office.[i]

In July 2026, Emma’s family filed suit, naming several Urban Air corporate entities along with the manufacturer and distributor of the go-kart system.[ii] Since then, the manufacturer has identified the operator of the Port St. Lucie facility as a Fabre nonparty[iii], while one of the Urban Air-affiliated defendants has asserted a release executed on the date of the accident as an affirmative defense.[iv]

The claims reach beyond the ride operator and the local business extending to the companies that allegedly set operating requirements, oversaw compliance, and supplied the equipment. The case highlights the importance of corporate control in allocation of fault, and the scope of contractual defenses.

1. Who’s Driving the Risk?

The Complaint identifies NIFE Holdings (“NIFE”) as the owner and operator of the Port St. Lucie location but does not name NIFE as a defendant. Instead, plaintiffs allege NIFE’s conduct is attributable to the named corporate defendants to the extent it was caused, directed, authorized, ratified by, or otherwise legally attributable to them.[v]

Plaintiffs identify different safety and operational functions attributable to the other entities and allege the accident was caused by failures at multiple levels. The manufacturer identified NIFE in its Answer as a Fabre nonparty whose fault may be considered by the jury.[vi] Discovery may provide grounds to allocate fault to other parties or nonparties.

An early investigation must cast a wide net beyond normally named defendants, such as owners and operators. The investigation must establish who supplied and selected the equipment and who was responsible for procedures, warnings, training, and inspections.

For each entity identified, there is likely a contract to review to identify opportunities for risk transfer, such as franchise and vendor agreements, purchase contracts, indemnity provisions, additional-insured requirements, and primary and excess policies. These contracts will affect tender decisions and the allocation of the loss.

2. Safety Rules as Evidence of Control

Here, plaintiffs’ control theory concerns specific operating requirements. In Florida, the use of a franchisor’s name, logo, products, and routine franchise support does not, by itself, establish an agency relationship. Agency may exist, however, where the franchisor substantially participates in directing or managing the franchisee’s conduct beyond ordinary franchise support.[vii] A franchisor may also face vicarious liability where it exercises, or retains the right to exercise, sufficient control over day-to-day operations.[viii]

FDACS reported, “per Urban Air Corporate direction,” Urban Air franchise locations standardized their go-kart speed settings at 9 mph, with a maximum of 10 mph.[ix] Plaintiffs also allege affiliated Urban Air entities were involved in signage, rider requirements, training, staffing, operating procedures, and compliance oversight.

Obviously, plaintiffs’ broader allegations have not been proven. It should be noted UA Attractions, one of the corporate defendants that has answered plaintiffs’ complaint, expressly denies the allegations.[x] Discovery will likely be protracted. It will seek to identify who implemented the standards and monitored compliance, and what enforcement mechanisms existed in reality, not simply in the agreements. Corporate communications and testimony about actual practice will be important to that inquiry.

3. When Operator Error Meets Product Liability

Plaintiffs also assert products liability claims against the manufacturer and distributor of the kart system. The FDACS investigation concluded the kart and track were in good condition and functioning as designed.[xi] Plaintiffs nevertheless assert design-defect, manufacturing-defect, and failure-to-warn claims. The manufacturer denies all three and has raised defenses including the absence of a defect, misuse, alteration or modification after the product left its control, and third-party fault.[xii]

It is critical to preserve the kart and its operating data promptly, along with records of maintenance, inspections, and modifications. Failure to do so could be fatal to a defense, as spoliation sanctions can be severe even when the loss of evidence is unintentional, and may result in striking defenses.

4. A Signed Release Does Not End the Analysis

UA Attractions’ October 26, 2026 answer expressly alleges Plaintiffs’ claims were waived under a “Release and Indemnification Agreement” executed on behalf of Emma Riddle and her mother on December 6, 2025.[xiii]

Florida law permits a natural guardian to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor participating in a commercial activity. However, section 744.301, Florida Statutes, limits the scope of that authority to claims resulting from an “inherent risk” of the activity. The statute defines an inherent risk as: “those dangers or conditions, known or unknown, which are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of the activity and which are not eliminated even if the activity provider acts with due care in a reasonably prudent manner.”[xiv]

A collision may be an inherent risk of go-karting. To avoid this defense, plaintiffs must distinguish that risk from the non-inherent risks of allowing a six-year-old child who was 49 inches tall to drive a tandem kart contrary to the manufacturer’s requirements, failing to verify restraints, or operating the attraction contrary to applicable safety requirements.

5. Arbitration Requires a Separate Review

It is unclear whether any party will seek to enforce any applicable arbitration agreement. In Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, the Florida Supreme Court held a parent could bind a minor child to a pre-injury arbitration agreement arising from a commercial activity.[xv] Affiliated entities may seek to enforce the agreement if they are also listed in the agreement.[xvi]

UA Attractions has asserted the release as an affirmative defense, but its answer does not separately assert arbitration, and the public docket does not reflect a motion to compel arbitration. When arbitration is a consideration, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Florida courts have held litigation conduct inconsistent with a contractual right to arbitrate may waive that right. Depending on the circumstances, that conduct can include answering on the merits without timely asserting arbitration.[xvii]

Takeaway

The Riddle case is in its very early stages, and a lengthy discovery stage is expected. Depositions will be taken of current and former employees and multiple experts on each aspect of claimed failure. The case does highlight how immediate claims-handling work can support a defense by identifying coverage, tendering indemnity demands, identifying nonparty fault, and deciding whether a release or arbitration provision is available.

Keep Reading

Non-Billable Hours: Why Time Away from Work Makes Me a Better Attorney Gratitude as an Attorney: Reflections From Jessica Zaragoza Getting to Verdict One Issue at a Time The Scariest Thing This Halloween: Nuclear Verdicts®! A Fall Without a Proven Cause: Causation and the Duty to Preserve Surveillance Footage in Weathers v. John C. Choe, DDS, Inc. Special Report: Five Key Takeaways on Florida Plaintiff Tactics Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Expedite an Appeal Gone Wrong: Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc. Good Record-Keeping is the Best Medicine The Arizona Pocket Fire: Do Not Wait for the Flames, Act Now!

More by this author

When Liability Jumps the Track: Lessons From the Urban Air Go-Kart Case Taming the Wolf: Florida’s Fifth DCA Holds the Line on Tort Reform Off the App, Off the Hook: Defeating Vicarious Liability Jurors Take Reptilian Bite Out of R.J. Reynolds with Florida Nuclear Verdict® Pump Up the Trial Jams – A Curated Playlist to Take Back Justice for All in Trial

Sources

[i] Fla. Dept. of Agric. & Consumer Servs., Bureau of Fair Rides Inspection, Investigative Report, NIFE Holdings, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park Port St. Lucie, Track (USAID #16481) (2026).

[ii] Complaint ¶¶ 7–15, Riddle v. UATP Mgmt., LLC, No. CACE-26-011733 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. filed July 20, 2026).

[iii] Under Florida law, a “Fabre nonparty” is a person or entity not named as a party in the lawsuit to whom a defendant seeks to allocate some or all of the fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), receded from in part on other grounds by Wells v. Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So. 2d 249, 254 (Fla. 1995); Fla. Stat. § 768.81(3).

[iv]Defendant Amusement Products, LLC’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 18-19, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 19, 2026); Defendant UA Attractions, LLC’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses 16, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 26, 2026).

[v] Complaint ¶¶ 7-8, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733.

[vi] Defendant Amusement Products, LLC’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 18-19, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 19, 2026).

[vii] Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119, 120-21 (Fla. 1995).

[viii] Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Wiederhold, 248 So. 3d 212, 222-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

[ix] Fla. Dept. of Agric. & Consumer Servs., Bureau of Fair Rides Inspection, Investigative Report, NIFE Holdings, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park Port St. Lucie, Track (USAID #16481) (2026).

[x] Defendant UA Attractions, LLC’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses 16, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 26, 2026).

[xi] Fla. Dept. of Agric. & Consumer Servs., Bureau of Fair Rides Inspection, Investigative Report, NIFE Holdings, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Adventure Park Port St. Lucie, Track (USAID #16481) (2026).

[xii] Defendant Amusement Products, LLC’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses 18-19, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 19, 2026).

[xiii] Defendant UA Attractions, LLC’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses 16, Riddle, No. CACE-26-011733 (filed Oct. 26, 2026).

[xiv] Fla. Stat. § 744.301(3)(a)-(c) (2026).

[xv] Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392, 405 (Fla. 2005).

[xvi] UATP Mgmt., LLC v. Barnes, 320 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); see also UATP Mgmt., LLC v. Geter, No. 24-0905, slip op. at 7-8 (Tex. Oct. 16, 2026) (per curiam).

[xvii] Glenn B. Wright Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Cohara, 87 So. 3d 1276, 1278-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Marine Env’t Partners, Inc. v. Johnson, 863 So. 2d 423, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).