Common Law Case Summary

The defense that was raised in this case was the Assumption of Risk. A plaintiff who willingly enters a dangerous situation and is injured will be barred from recovery (McAdams, 2015, p. 306). In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, 55 Cal. 4th 1148, it states that common law doctrine the Assumption of Risk, a defense to liability for injuries resulting from "a specific, known and appreciated risk" to which the plaintiff had voluntarily consented. The implied-consent theory focuses on what the plaintiff knew about the nature and magnitude of the risks in a bumper car setting. The requirements for the use of the assumption of risk defense are: "(1) knowledge of the risk and (2) voluntary assumption of risk" (McAdams, Zucker and Neslund, 2015 p.306). Dr. Nalwa has the knowledge of the risk in observing the ride as she waits in line, as well as from reading the …show more content…
There can always be better designs and more warnings, but to a certain extent the warnings are not read and the designs could make the ride not as exciting. To establish a successful negligence claim we can use the negligence test. The test consists of establishing a Duty, Breach of that Duty, Causation, and Injury. The theme park owes a duty of care to the consumers, by providing entertainment that is well designed for safety, that it is regularly inspected for safety, that people are warned of the potential risks, and that the people are supervised to keep from misuse. In this case, the ride was designed long ago and used in many locations with very little harm to people. According to the case documents, "approximately 300,000 people rode on that ride in 2005, the year plaintiff was injured, and she was the only one to suffer a fracture. Based on such evidence, a jury could conclude that defendant was not negligent". This also proves that the theme park did not breach their duty and so the test