What is an inherent risk to a water slide for application of Pennsylvania’s “no duty” rule.
Summary judgment was affirmed in a claim against a water park for an injury that occurred when a minor came off an inner tube and injured his face and teeth. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that coming off an inner tube and landing in a slide was not a frequent, common and expected part of riding a water slide. The plaintiffs offered no evidentiary basis that the type of inner tube used contributed to the injury.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2017
Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.