In his recent decision in the case of Barrett v. Chervanka, No. 14-CV-5175
(C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 8, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment based upon the “no-duty rule” and the alleged actions of any duty on
the part of the Defendant bowling lane operator.
According to the Opinion, a minor Plaintiff’s injury
allegedly resulted from a minor Defendant’s release of her bowling ball from
the runway approach alignment dots, located twelve (12) feet before the
prescribed foul line and the Defendant’s failure to observe the minor Plaintiff
who was positioned at the foul line as the minor Defendant was releasing his
bowling ball.
Judge Nealon noted that, under the “no-duty” rule, the
operator of an amusement facilities owes no duty of care to protect its
business invitees against risks that are common, frequent, expected, and
inherent in the amusement activity. Here,
the court found that, although the sport of bowling involves certain apparent
risks, the minor Defendant’s conduct and its associated hazards were not found
to be common, frequent, and expected risk that are inherent in bowling. Accordingly, the court found that the
bowling lane operator had not established that the “no-duty” rule bars the
Plaintiff’s claims. Consequently, the
court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.