Summary judgment affirmed for water park as no duty to patron to assist in getting on lazy river inner tube.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s findings based on the plaintiff’s inadequacy in demonstrating a question of fact. The trial court found there was no duty to the plaintiff to assist or load him onto a lazy river inner tube as the risks were common, inherent, expected, or frequent and as the plaintiff failed to set forth a duty of care or any deviation from a duty of care.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2021 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}