What is an inherent risk to a water slide for application of Pennsylvania’s “no duty” rule.

Summary judgment was affirmed in a claim against a water park for an injury that occurred when a minor came off an inner tube and injured his face and teeth. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that coming off an inner tube and landing in a slide was not a frequent, common and expected part of riding a water slide. The plaintiffs offered no evidentiary basis that the type of inner tube used contributed to the injury.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2017}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}