Statement of Facts
Plaintif, Dr. Smriti Nalwa, injured her wrist at an amusement park, during a bumper car ride. She sued the amusement park owner, Cedar Fair, L.P, for negligence in not operating the bumper car in order to prevent her injury [1].
On the 5th of July, 2005, plaintiff took her children to Great America amusement park, operated and owned by the defendant. The park’s bumper car ride, Rue le Dodge, consisted of small vehicles that were powered by electricity and moved around a flat surface. Each car is able to take two people, both were provided with seatbelts. The driver of each car controlled its navigation and acceleration. All the cars had a padded interior and was encompassed with a rubber bumper.
When the incident happened, plaintiff was in the bumper car her son drove, while her daughter drove a car by herself.…show more content… Firstly, applying the primary assumption of risk to “non-sport” recreational activities. In this case, operators or instructors in the activity have the duty to not increase the risk of injury over the inherent risk in the activity itself [3]. The plaintiff disagree that a bumper car ride is included in the activities to which the doctrine applies. On the other hand, defendant stand firm that the doctrine is not limited to sports and should administer to amusement park rides that involve inherent risk. This should include bumper car rides because placing a duty to reduce inherent risks would usually change the nature of the ride. For example, in order to reduce the inherent risk of injury, operators can significantly reduce the velocity at which the bumper cars could operate, however by doing so, the fun of bumping would be eliminated. Therefore, potentially discouraging patrons from riding
