Is an amusement park operator liable for injuries sustained by patrons on a ride known to be risky?

A young man visited Steeplechase Amusement Park at Coney Island, New York, with his girlfriend (later wife) and friends. They rode an attraction called "The Flopper," a moving belt on an inclined plane where passengers often fell due to the movement. The ride had padded walls and flooring, and was powered by an electric motor. While on the ride, the young man experienced a sudden jerk, was thrown to the floor, and fractured his knee cap. His companions were also thrown but not injured.

The injured man sued Steeplechase Amusement Company, the park operator, claiming the ride was dangerous and lacked proper safety measures. He alleged the belt stopped and started violently, operated at an unsafe speed, and lacked adequate railings or guards. The plaintiff acknowledged observing others on the ride before participating and recognized the inherent risk. There was conflicting testimony about previous accidents on the ride, though none reported were as severe as the plaintiff's injury. The nature of the attraction was known for its risk and excitement, with falling being an expected part of the experience.

The case originated in the Trial Term, where an initial judgment was rendered. Following this decision, one of the parties appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reviewed the case and subsequently affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Not satisfied with this outcome, a further appeal was made, bringing the case before the current court, which is likely the New York Court of Appeals, for final review and determination.

(None)

No. An amusement park operator is not liable for injuries sustained by patrons on a ride known to be risky when the dangers are obvious and inherent to the attraction. The principle of volenti non fit injuria applies in such cases, as patrons voluntarily assume the risks associated with the activity. When participating in an amusement park ride, the very nature of the attraction invites certain hazards that are foreseeable and part of the intended experience. The mere occurrence of an accident does not establish negligence on the part of the operator. To prove liability, there must be clear evidence of a malfunction, improper operation, or a defect in the equipment that goes beyond the inherent risks of the ride. The number of previous incidents must be statistically significant to render a ride inherently too dangerous to operate without modifications. When assessing potential liability, the focus should be on whether the operator maintained the equipment properly and operated it within normal parameters, not on the inherent risks that patrons willingly accept. Patrons who choose to engage in thrilling or potentially dangerous activities at amusement parks cannot later claim injury from the very risks that made the activity appealing, provided those risks were obvious and the ride was functioning as intended.

Dissent (O'Brien, J.) The decision in Tantillo v. Goldstein Brothers Amusement Co. (248 N.Y. 286) is controlling in this case. The majority's departure from this precedent is unwarranted and undermines legal consistency. The principles established in Tantillo should be upheld to maintain jurisprudential stability and predictability in similar cases.

Concurrence (Pound, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Crane, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Lehman, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Kellogg, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Hubbs, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.