A pole used to strike a piñata is not an artificial dangerous condition sufficient to warrant the model charge.

The Superior Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, holding that a metal pole used to strike a piñata is not a dangerous condition on the property. The pole broke while the plaintiff was using it to strike the piñata, causing permanent nerve damage to her arm. The court found that the injury resulted solely from the “activity” on the property, not a combination of an activity and an artificial condition. Therefore, the charge to the jury as to an artificial dangerous condition was not warranted.

^{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2019}

^{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 © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}