On 13 June, a four-year-old boy collapsed on a ride at Walt Disney World Florida, US, and later died.

Daudi Bamuwamye had visited the Orlando theme park with his mother and sister and collapsed while on the four-minute Epcot Mission:Space ride.

He is understood to have collapsed towards the end of the ride. Treated at the scene by Disney employees – who initially thought he had simply passed out on the ride. Daudi was later taken to Celebration Hospital, where he was declared dead.

His mother said he had no history of medical problems and a preliminary autopsy report found no sign of trauma. At 3 feet 10 inches tall, he was 2 inches taller than the ride’s 44-inch minimum height warning signs.

Further tests will now be conducted to establish the cause of death, although this could take up to 12 weeks.

The ride – which was temporarily closed following the incident to allow engineers access – first opened in 2003 and utilises centrifugal force to simulate the weightlessness of a rocket launch. More than 8.6 million guests have ridden on Mission:Space since its debut at the Disney Epcot Centre.

A Disney spokesperson said: “The safety of our guests and cast remains our top priority. On behalf of the resort and its 57,000 cast members, we are saddened by this highly unusual event.

“Our first concern is for the family and we are doing everything we can to help them during this difficult time.”

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court last week ruled that Walt Disney World and other theme park operators have a duty to protect their customers.

The ruling related to a case regarding a 23-year-old woman, Christina Moreno, who went on the Indiana Jones ride at Disney World California in 2000 and suffered a fatal brain injury.

The court ruled that Moreno’s family could sue Disney under a state law normally applicable to transport companies. The theme park operator unsuccessfully argued that it had no liability as a transport provider as its passengers were thrillseekers, not trying to get to a destination.

The court said that, in terms of being a rollercoaster operator, Disney had no justification for imposing a lesser duty of care just because the fundamental purpose of the ride was entertainment as riders expect thrills and excitement but not to be hurt.

A Disney spokesperson said: “While we disagree with the decision, it has nothing to do with the safety of our parks. Our commitment to guest safety always has been, and continues to be, unwavering.”