Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.
55 Cal. 4th 1148
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff injured her wrist on a Rue le Dodge bumper car ride at Great America and sued for negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment favoring the park owner under the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, suggesting the doctrine did not apply to bumper cars and/or public safety policies prevailed.
- Rue le Dodge is a multidirectional bumper car ride with independently controlled cars; head-on bumping is prohibited but rear and side bumps occur.
- The ride is routinely inspected; the record shows many injuries but plaintiff’s fracture was the only one involving a fracture that year.
- Gomez v. Superior Court had noted a possible common-carrier duty for certain rides, but this case distinguishes bumper cars from roller coasters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk applies to bumper car rides | Nalwa argues the doctrine is limited to sports, not bumper cars. | Cedar Fair contends the doctrine applies to bumper cars as ongoing recreational activity with inherent risks. | Yes; doctrine applies to bumper cars. |
| Whether amusement park safety regulations preclude application of the doctrine | Regulations show rider safety policy outweighs risk; public policy precludes no-duty-for-sport. | Regulations do not immunize against inherent risks or negate limited duty. | Regulations do not preclude the doctrine. |
| Whether operator is a common carrier for reward | Gomez suggests some rides can be common carriers; Rue le Dodge may be treated as such. | Rue le Dodge is dissimilar to a roller coaster; not a common carrier for reward. | Operator is not a common carrier for reward; no heightened duty. |
| What duty the operator owes to participants | Defendant controls operation and finances; should owe ordinary duty of care. | Under primary assumption of risk, operator owes no duty to eliminate inherent risks, only not to increase them. | Operator owes no duty to eliminate inherent risks; may not increase risks beyond inherent level. |
| Whether head-on collision risk falls within inherent risk requiring no duty to prevent | Head-on collisions are within the risk of bumping and should be mitigated. | All bumping angles are inherent risks; no basis to single out head-on risk for special duty. | Head-on risk is an inherent risk; no duty to prevent it beyond inherent risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (no-duty-for-sports; inherent risks cannot be eliminated without altering activity)
- Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2005) (roller coasters as common carriers for reward; limits applicable to similar rides)
- Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., 38 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2006) (inherent risks in recreational activities; duty not to increase risk)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (Cal. 2003) (applies no-duty-for-sports to instructional/supervisory roles in sports context)
- Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 1997) (extension of duty framework in recreation context)
- Ford v. Gouin, 3 Cal.4th 339 (Cal. 1992) (companion to Knight; limits on negligence in waterskiing context)
- Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2007) (inherent risk concept in sport and recreation; discusses scope)