Summary Judgment Granted in Water Park Ride Under "No-Duty" Rule

In the case of Mantilla v. CMBK Resort Holdings, LLC, No. 5780-Civil-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 25, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries from a water park ride during which the raft either flipped or the Plaintiff fell from it, resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the applicable law, which included the fact that, generally speaking, purveyors of theaters, amusement parks, or sports facilities have a “no-duty” rule to protect a party from injuries so long as the injuries suffered arose from a risk that was “common, frequent, and expected” of the situation.

The court ruled that, based upon the record before it, the Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish any conduct on the part of the Defendants that was not an inherent risk of utilizing a water slide.

In this matter, the Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that her raft flipped due to a sudden change in the water pressure, causing her to strike her shoulder on the side of the slide itself. The court noted that this is an inherent risk of water slides, where unexpected changes in water flow and the possibility of body parts colliding with the hard surface of the tube.

Given that the Plaintiff failed to show any other evidence of negligence and given that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the “common, frequent, and expected” dangers of water slides, the court granted summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).

Slip and Fall Case at Waterpark Allowed to Slide Past a Motion to Dismiss

In the case of Ahmed v. Kalahari Resorts & Conventions-Poconos, No. 3:24-CV-00851-JKM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2024 Munley, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement, in a slip and fall case involving an indoor water park.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the waterpark area allegedly due to the fact that the steps were not properly treated and were covered with mold or algae.

In reviewing the Plaintiff’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, the court found that the Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts regarding his status as a business invitee and the alleged breach of a duty of reasonable care on the part of the Defendant. The court found that, if the Plaintiff’s alleged facts were accepted as true, as they must be at this stage of the proceedings, the Plaintiff had sufficiently provided a short and plain statement of the claims presented demonstrating that he is entitled to relief in accordance with F.R.C.P. 8.

Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement of the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(e), the court agreed with the defense argument that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was too vague or ambiguous in that it did not state with specificity the location of the stairs upon which the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

In response to this motion, the Plaintiff indicated that he would provide photographs of the exact location of his fall during the course of discovery.

Judge Munley ruled that, given that the Plaintiff had admitted that he evidently knew which steps he fell upon, and given that the location of the steps at issue could affect how the different Defendants named in this lawsuit might respond to the Complaint, the court granted the Motion for More Definite Statement and directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to more specifically assert where the Plaintiff allegedly fell on the premises.

Judge Munley otherwise raised an issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The court noted that it could not determine from the Complaint whether the court had jurisdiction.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had alleged that jurisdiction was based on the diversity jurisdiction statute. However, the Complaint did not list the citizenship of the parties, but only the residency of the parties.

The court noted that residency and citizenship do not have the same meaning for purposes of the diversity statute. As such, the Plaintiff was directed to pile a more specific Complaint in order to properly allege the citizenship of all of the parties named in the Complaint so that the court could assure itself that jurisdiction was proper.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article – “Slip-And-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark.” By Riley Brennan Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 8, 2024).

Summary Judgment Denied in Water Park Accident Case

In the case of Deleon v. MHC Timothy Lake N. Ltd. Partnership, No. 8652 - CV - 2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 29, 2017 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving injuries allegedly sustained by a minor Plaintiff while riding down a water slide at the Defendant’s water park.   The court essentially found that genuine issues of material fact existed to allow the case to proceed to a jury.  

According to the Opinion, the Defendant operated a water park at which the Plaintiff visited with her family and friends.   The Plaintiff made several trips down a water slide.  On the last trip, the Plaintiff emerged with a forehead laceration.  

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the laceration was caused by a jagged edge on the water slide.  However, deposition testimony indicated that the injury may have occurred instead when the Plaintiff hit her head on the water slide.  

The Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plaintiff admitted in discovery that the alleged jagged edge on the water slide did not exist.   In the alternative, the defense asserted that there was no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the Defendant of the allegedly defective condition.   The Defendant also maintained that the Plaintiff’s claim under res ipsa loquitur was not substantiated, as injuries on water slides were common.

The court rejected the defense argument relative to the res ipsa loquitur argument by noting that there were genuine issues of fact to be considered by a jury.  

The court additionally found that the inconsistent allegations by the Plaintiff as to how the laceration occurred were not enough to warrant summary judgment as the factual determination in that regard should be left to the jury.  

The court also rejected the defense argument that summary judgment was warranted given that the slide had been formally inspected three (3) days prior to the Plaintiff’s alleged incident.    The court noted that, even if the Defendant had passed the inspection, that did not eliminate the possibility that the inspector had missed a defect or that some other condition had occurred between the inspection and the Plaintiff’s accident that could have caused the injury.   Again, since there were issues of fact in this regard, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the case to proceed.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 13, 2018).  

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Water Park

In the case of Rabadi v. Great Wolf Lodge, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00101 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2016 Mariani, J.), the court ranted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant water park.

The court entered summary judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had no expert to support their theory of how the Defendant’s ride malfunctioned.   In the absence of any expert, the Plaintiffs cannot prove causation.   The court ruled that the cause of the Plaintiff’s alleged injury was not so simple or obvious that an expert would not be required.  

Judge Mariani further held that in negligence cases in which water pressure is allegedly the cause of injury, expert testimony is required to proceed to a jury.   The court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not apply.  

In his decision, Judge Mariani also referenced the well said of principle that a mere occurrence of an accident, without more, does not establish negligent conduct on the part of a Defendant.  

 

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

 

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this decision to my attention.