In a rare tie, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association named Estifanos v. Glenwood Caverns one of its 2026 Case of the Year honorees.
The facts of Estifanos v. Glenwood Caverns are as devastating as they are legally consequential. What began as the tragic death of a 6-year-old on an amusement park ride became a yearslong legal battle over corporate accountability, discovery resistance and the limits of Colorado’s wrongful death statute.
A jury returned a $205 million verdict, including significant punitive damages. In a pivotal ruling, the court found the conduct constituted a “felonious killing,” lifting the statutory cap on noneconomic damages.
The case has since drawn national attention, not only for the size of the verdict, but for what it signals about how courts may approach extreme misconduct in wrongful death claims.
Law Week Colorado spoke with Dan Caplis and John Kellner of Dan Caplis Law, along with Kari Jones Dulin of Dulin McQuinn & Young, about the case:
Law Week Colorado: What initially brought you into Estifanos v. Glenwood Caverns, and what stood out to you about the case early on?
Caplis: Early on, we were struck by the complete defiance shown by the defendants. Their strategy was to deny liability, even in the face of a Colorado state investigation that put their negligent and reckless actions on full display. They maintained that strategy all the way through the jury verdict. We knew that to hold them fully accountable and to protect the public, we would have to conduct massive discovery to get the full truth as soon as possible.
LWC: What were the biggest challenges in uncovering what happened on the ride, particularly given the park’s denial of fault?
Caplis: Some of the defendants’ witnesses were extremely evasive, which we were able to combat through skill and persistence during the depositions. We had to wage a long battle to obtain many of the critical documents. Many of the key documents were not disclosed until shortly before trial and three years into the litigation. And those documents were only obtained through rigorous follow-up and pressure on the defense. We had to go to multiple discovery dispute hearings to obtain additional key depositions, including the deposition of a park owner, which proved critical at trial. We were fortunate to have a very fair, balanced and hard-working judge who was willing to give all parties the opportunity to fully make their case regarding additional discovery.
LWC: What key pieces of evidence or discovery were most critical in proving the systemic safety failures?
Kellner: The single most important piece of evidence was the video of 6-year-old Wongel’s final ride. The jury saw with their own eyes that the operators never placed a seatbelt over Wongel, that the ride’s warning system flagged a problem with her seat, and that instead of investigating the cause, the operators reset the seatbelt monitor and launched the ride with Wongel sitting on top of both belts. One operator admitted at trial, “I wasn’t going in there to look for a cause. I was going in there to fix a problem.” That video proved this was not a momentary lapse; it was the product of a system. The state of Colorado’s investigation corroborated what the video showed: The park never trained operators on the meaning of the error lights or the requirement to pull the belt over every passenger and visually confirm it. Together, that evidence proved the death was foreseeable, preventable and the product of choices made at every level.
LWC: How did the defense strategy evolve over the course of the litigation?
Kellner: It evolved from total denial to finger-pointing, but it never evolved into accountability. For nearly four years, the defendants denied fault entirely, even after a state investigation laid out their violations in black and white. They forced the family to litigate every issue. As discovery stripped their defenses away, the strategy shifted: By trial, the park conceded “mistakes” were made but argued the manufacturer, Soaring Eagle, was the “root cause” and should bear 75% of the fault. The park also leaned heavily on sympathy, portraying itself as a local business with local jobs at stake, and suggested the jury award $2 million and a memorial trust in Wongel’s name. Soaring Eagle, for its part, did not appear at trial to defend itself.
The jury saw through all of it. They allocated fault almost evenly between the park and the manufacturer, awarded $82 million in noneconomic damages and added $123 million in punitive damages against the park — a verdict that rejected the deflection strategy in the clearest possible terms. Even after the verdict, the park’s public statements continued to blame Soaring Eagle. That defiance, from the first pleading to the final press release, is exactly why the punitive award was necessary.
LWC: What was your approach to presenting a case of this magnitude and emotional weight to a jury?
Kellner: Our approach was to keep it simple, keep it true, and trust the jury. This was a case about a corporation that made a deliberate, calculated decision to violate the law in order to increase profits — and a little girl paid for it with her life. We never had to manufacture emotion; the evidence carried it. The video of Wongel’s ride, the testimony of Rahel Estifanos and Estifanos Dagne, and the defendants’ own witnesses told the story.
On damages, we gave the jury a framework and asked them to do something extraordinary. The law required them to determine the full amount of money equal to the amount of the loss, not a discounted figure. We pointed out that no language on earth has a word for a parent who loses a child because the loss is that unspeakable. Then we were fearless about the number: We asked for $300 million and told the jury it could easily be much higher because anything less would not be equal to the loss. The jury’s verdict reflected that they understood both the magnitude of the loss and the need to deter this conduct forever.
LWC: Looking back, was there a moment during trial or discovery that felt especially pivotal in shifting the trajectory of the case?
Dulin: Several Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park managers and a minority owner of the park were called in our case-in-chief. These witnesses were key to highlighting the park’s belief they had zero accountability for Wongel’s death. We showed Wongel’s fateful ride to many of these witnesses. We showed these witnesses videos of employees operating the Haunted Mine Drop Ride prior to Wongel’s death. The video evidence was proof that employees were not properly trained and were pressured to push as many customers through the ride as they could; as a result, safety was compromised. When faced with these videos at trial, these witnesses showed the jury the park was more interested in profit than safety. After Wongel’s death, two women who had attended the park prior to Wongel’s death reached out regarding their own near-miss experiences when ride operators had failed to put safety belts on riders. Their testimony at trial carried the message that it was not if someone would be killed on the Ride, but when. Lastly, the testimony of Rahel Estifanos and Estifanos Dagne about the loss of their daughter, Wongel, was extremely powerful and allowed the jury to see that their grief was just as raw as the day Wongel died.
LWC: The jury returned a $205 million verdict, and the court made an unusual finding of “felonious killing.” How significant is that legal determination in this context?
Dulin: At the time of Wongel’s death, there was a $250,000 statutory cap on the amount of noneconomic damages recoverable under Colorado’s wrongful death act (WDA). C.R.S. § 13-21-203(1)(A). The $250,000 cap on wrongful death noneconomic damages was adjusted for inflation so as of Sept. 5, 2021, the cap was $571,870. This meant that if the jury awarded more than $571,870 in wrongful death noneconomic damages at trial, the presiding judge, Chief Judge John Neiley, would reduce the jury’s wrongful death noneconomic damage award to $571,870. However, Colorado’s WDA has an exception to the noneconomic damages cap if the act causing the death constitutes a “felonious killing,” which lifts the cap on damages. The jury awarded $82,000,000 in noneconomic damages against the defendants in the following proportions of fault: Glenwood Caverns Holdings, L.L.C. (Caverns), 49.95% ($40,959,000); Toby Williams (Williams) 0.09% ($73,800); Steve Ochoa (Ochoa) 0.01% ($8,200); and Soaring Eagle, Inc. (Soaring Eagle) 49.95% ($40,959,000). Simply put, it is because the jury awarded Rahel Estifanos and Estifanos Dagne a wrongful death noneconomic damage award far above the $571,870 cap, Judge Neiley was then tasked with determining whether the wrongful acts of all four defendants constituted a felonious killing. On Oct. 2, 2025, Judge Neiley determined the actions of all four defendants constituted a felonious killing. The significance of Judge Neiley’s felonious killing determination is that it recognized the extremely reckless conduct of the defendants and gave the jury’s verdict its full weight.
LWC: What impact do you think this case will have on safety standards in the amusement park industry going forward?
Dulin: Rahel Estifanos and Estifanos Dagne wanted to ensure that no one else died because of corporate greed. The Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park was owned by Off Road Management, a private equity company based in New York. The park advertised itself as a safe place for families. However, the truth is that Wongel Estifanos died because profit was more important than safety. The way to ensure meaningful change when dealing with corporate greed is to impact their bottom line. The jury awarded $123 million in punitive damages against the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park. Punitive damages serve to deter conduct and send a message. The jury’s verdict ensures justice was served and sent a message to the amusement park industry that safety must be the priority.
LWC: You were recognized with a Colorado Trial Lawyers Association Case of the Year award for this matter. What does that recognition mean to you personally and professionally, especially in light of the work you put into this case?
Caplis: The Case of the Year Award means the world to me because it recognizes the incredible good our brave clients achieved by pursuing this case, and because of the tremendous and enduring contributions of many of the giants of CTLA.
