Amusement Park Injury Case Study

724 Words2 Pages

There are a whole host of defenses that amusement parks and ride manufacturers may raise in a personal injury lawsuit. The defenses discussed below can be defenses involving amusement park rides.
1. Assumption of the risk.
Assumption of the risk is not a blanket defense that can be used against anyone who consciously takes an amusement park ride. Customers must be aware of the risks involved in order to assume them. For example, if Justin didn’t know about a loose screw in a roller coaster, that the ride operator received little or no training, or that the park never conducts safety inspections, the rider cannot have assumed the risks associated with those details. . In this case, it is very clear and evident that the Knott’s Berry amusement …show more content…

This defense isn 't a slam dunk, however. For example, plaintiffs might be able to prove that a properly trained rider operator would have noticed the child 's small size and prevented the child from going on the ride in the first place. When riders don 't follow posted safety rules and leads to injury, the amusement park can bring this as a defense as well. For example, if a rider unlatches his seatbelt on a spinning ride and then is thrown from the car, a court is unlikely to find the park negligent. In my personal opinion this cannot be used as defense by Knott’s Berry amusement park as non-compliance was not …show more content…

The result and the final decision court will depend on the laws of that state. While a majority of states has chosen to institute a rule where they hold amusement ride operators and owners to the standard of ordinary care in operating their rides, a growing minority of states, including Illinois, hold those same operators to the duty of utmost care. The importance of a consistent standard for roller coasters is imperative to raising the expectation of safety, thereby preventing many of the accidents that occur every

Open Document