In a recent decision by the California Supreme Court (Nalwa vs. Cedar Fair (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 1148), it was held that an amusement park has no duty to ensure a rider's safety when that patron assumes the risk of riding a bumper car, even where the plaintiff sustained a broken wrist from a "head-on" collision. The Court's decision was based on a long line of cases arising from sporting activities and in which it has been held the participant has "assumed the risk" inherent in the activity. This new decision has now extended the assumption of the risk doctrine to at least some amusement park rides.
Impact of The Decision
The issue presented by the Supreme Court's decision is whether this holding marks the beginning of a long line of cases in which the assumption of the risk doctrine will defeat seemingly legitimate claims. In Nalwa, the Court noted that the amusement park company ran a number of other bumper car attractions in which the cars could only travel one direction, preventing direct, head-on collisions. In spite of this fact, the Court declined to hold the amusement park company liable for failing to do so at the park where the plaintiff was injured. Without some evidence the defendant had increased the risk of injury inherent in the activity of bumper car riding, Nalwa was left without a remedy and without compensation.
Certain Claims Still Remain
Following the Nalwa decision, there still remain viable cases arising from sporting and recreational activities. Under California law, , operators, instructors and participants in recreational and sporting activity owe other participants the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity. In other words, if it can be shown there was a unique danger caused or created by the defendant, beyond that occasioned by ordinarily negligence, then a willing participant in such recreational or sporting activities may have a meritorious case. Generally, it must be shown the defendant's conduct was reckless in that it was totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved. Such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
If you or a family member have been involved in an accident while engaging in some recreational or sporting activity, it may be best to consult with a personal injury attorney to find out what right there may be to compensation. These cases are inherently difficult, but careful examination of the facts may reveal a defendant acted or failed to act in accordance with the law, entitling the injured party and their family to compensation.
SOURCE: Nalwa vs. Cedar Fair (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 1148, December 31, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment