Summary Judgment Granted in Snow Tubing Case Based on No-Duty Rule

In the case of Hamber v. CBH2O, LP t/a Camelback Mountain Resort, No. 8778-CV-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 9, 2020 Harlacher Sibum, J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the Complaint with prejudiced in a case involving allegations of injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff while snowtubing at Camelback Mountain Resort.

The Plaintiff alleged that, while nearing the end of a snow tube run, his tube came into contact with a deceleration mat and became airborne, causing the Plaintiff to be ejected from the snow tube and to land on his neck in an adjacent snow tubing lane. The Plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by the improper placement of the deceleration mat.

The court ruled that the use of a deceleration mat was directly related and inherent to the sport of snow tubing as it would be a common, frequent and expected part of the activity to encounter some decelerating agent at the end of the run.

Given that contact with the deceleration mat was an inherent part of the snow tubing activity, and given that the risk of being thrown from the snow tube as an inherent part of snow tubing, the court held that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff under Pennsylvania law from contact with the deceleration mat or the general risk of being thrown from the tube.

As such, the court found that the Plaintiff’s negligent claim was barred under the “no-duty” doctrine.

Judge Harlacher Sibum more specifically stated that, under Pennsylvania law, “the assumption of risk defense, as applied to sports and places of amusement, has also been described as a ‘no-duty’ rule, i.e., as the principle that an owner or operator of a place of amusement has no duty to protect the user from any hazards inherent in the activity.” In this regard, the court quoted the case of Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, LP., 2 A.3d 1174, 1186 (Pa. 2010).

The court further stated, again citing Chepkevich, that “where there is no duty, there can be no negligence, and thus when inherent risks are involved, negligence principles are irrelevant… and there can be no recovery based on allegations of negligence.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 5, 2020).

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses "No-Duty Rule"

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.