The assumption of risk bumper car case was discussed here. A doctor seriously injured her hand when she was hit from both the rear and the front. Head on collisions violated the park’s bumper car rules. In that discussion, the intermediate court had refused to extend the “no sports duty rule” to a non-sport recreational activity such as bumper cars – holding the park responsible for the riders injuries.
But recently, the highest court in the state disagreed. In a bad decision for personal injury victims, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the amusement park and determined that the bumper car rider had "assumed the risk of injury when she participated in this recreational activity.” Park owners and other sponsors will likely only owe a duty if they fail to provide routine safety measures. The Court indicated that the “no sports duty rule” may be applied not only to amusement park rides but to “any physical activity not essential to daily life.
Watch out — many bumps ahead!