Archive for the ‘Water Park’ Category

Ejected – Man Knocked Unconscious on Water Slide; Court Permits Amendment to Complaint Alleging Punitive Damages (PA)

September 10, 2015

Perez v. Great Wolf Lodge of the Poconos (Pennsylvania)
(trial court disposition)

Plaintiff Brian Perez was a paying guest and business invitee of the defendant Great Wolf Lodge, which operates a hotel and water park in the Poconos.  While riding on a water slide with his companions, Perez’s raft began “oscillating excessively,” causing him to strike his head and neck on the side of the ride, rendering him unconscious, and ejecting him from the ride.  Perez and his wife filed a complaint against the defendant alleging negligent overloading of the raft.  Discovery ensued and was very contentious.  There was what was characterized as a “failure of discovery by the defendants for much of the first year of this litigation.”  At some point, the initial attorney representing the defendant was replaced.  Thereafter, some significant additional disclosures, totaling approximately 5,000 pages of material, were made by the defendant.  As a result of the disclosures, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages to the lawsuit.

(more…)

Slipping and Sliding Away

September 20, 2012

Close v. Darien Lake Theme Park and Camping Resort, Inc. (New York)
(A guest at an amusement park suffered an injury on a water ride and sued the park; the court held that the park owner was not liable for the injury.)

In this very short opinion, the Court explained, “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation.”  It also noted that “[a]wareness of the risk is ‘to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’.'”  The defendant had successfully met its burden by proving that the plaintiff understood and voluntarily assumed the risks.  Despite, plaintiff’s contention to the contrary, the plaintiff was unable to raise a triable issue regarding reckless or intentional conduct or that there was a dangerous concealed condition.

NOTE: The published opinion does not include any factual details of the incident or the facility’s specific role in the incident.