California Personal Injury Law Case Notes : California Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Kristine Meredith : The Danko Law Firm : Car Accidents & Product Liability

Maybe. A California court has ruled that the assumption of risk defense does not apply to rides at an amusement park. The guest will still need to prove her case; but the claim is not automatically barred as many would have expected.

In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair,LP.,  a guest who broke her wrist on a bumper car was allowed to proceed with her claim against Great America amusement park.  But isn't an injury from getting bumped on a bumper car an inherent risk of the riding a bumper car? Perhaps, but the analysis goes further.
 

The Court explained that California laws require amusement parks to make their rides safe. If  parks can avoid responsibility by asserting theassumption of risk defense, the purpose of the laws would be frustrated. Also, the Court pointed out that sitting as a passenger on a bumper car is not a vigorous enough activity to be considered a “sport”. And, the court determined that an amusement park owner should be held to a higher level of responsibility for safety of its rides -- not a lower or non-existent safety level.
 

The park guest assumes the risk of being frightened -- expecting a thrill; not an injury.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When someone is injured during a sports activity, the one who caused the injury will likely raise a defense called "assumption of risk". The wrongdoer argues that he’s not to blame because the law didn’t require him to protect the participant from the particular risk of harm involved in the claim. Whether the doctrine applies to protect the wrongdoer depends on two factors: 1) the nature of the sport, and 2) the relationship between the parties.

For example, a golfer who suffers a brain injury when struck in the head by a sliced golf shot on the course would likely be barred from making a claim against the golf course or the golfer who made the bad shot. The risk of getting hit by a ball is inherent to the sport of golf and so the golfer, by participating in the sport, “assumed the risk”.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Connecticut jury recently awarded $8,000,000 to a young man injured during warm ups for a USA Track and Field Junior Olympic Championship meet in 2002. High school senior pole vaulter Brandon White fractured his back at T5 and T10 levels and remains paralyzed from the chest down. Mr. White claimed that the beginning of the runway was obstructed by a batting cage. He sued the USA Track & Field Association/Connecticut for negligent supervision and for failing to provide a sufficient runway length. His sports and safety expert testified that the the usable runway was 25 feet short of the required USATFA length.

The USATFA defendant contended that Mr. White was instructed not to warm up until an official returned. It also claimed that Mr. White did not properly prepare for his vault attempt and should not have let go of the pole when he did. Mr. White’s waiver of all liability and express assumption of risk were excluded from evidence because Connecticut law disfavors these types of waivers.

The jury, without knowledge of the waiver and assumption of risk, determined that defendants were at fault for his injuries.  However, the jury determined that Mr. White was  nonetheless 20% to blame and so his award was reduced to $6,400,000. 

California law sets the bar higher for plaintiffs to prove their case.  California courts generally enforce waivers such as the one Mr. White signed.  Unless there were exceptional circumstances, he wouldn't have been permitted to bring his case to trial. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link