Marshall Dennehey's Amusements, Sports & Recreation Practice is nationally recognized. The firm's clients are involved in virtually every aspect of the broad field of amusements, sports and recreation including theme parks, water parks, and professional sports teams to small carnivals local skating centers, fitness centers, camps, trampoline courts, climbing walls, and zip lines.
Litigators in our practice group have made amusements, sports and recreation a principal focus of their practice for over 20 years. Our litigators publish and lecture frequently in their areas of concentration and provide commentary in the print and broadcast media on breaking legal stories. Our involvement in standards development provides us with advance information on emerging standards and legal requirements for our amusement clients.
Our litigation defense attorneys are members of industry, trade and professional organizations including the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), the Outdoor Amusement Business Association (OABA), the National Association of Ride Safety Officials (NAARSO), United States Figure Skating (USFS), the Pennsylvania Amusement Park Association (PAPA), the World Waterpark Association (WWA), the International Recreational Go-Kart Association (IRGA) and the American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) F24 Committee on Amusement Rides and Devices.
Many of the lawyers in our group have positions of leadership in the amusement, sports & recreation industry.
- Counsel to the New Jersey Amusement Association
- Member of the IAAPA Government Relations Committee
- State-licensed soccer coaches
- Counsel to the International Recreational Go-Kart Association
- Member of the Risk Management Committee of the Roller-Skating Association International
- Member of the New Jersey Governor's Commission on Amusement Liability
The Amusements, Sports & Recreation Practice is unique in many ways that distinguish us from our peers.
- An important asset to our litigation defense group has been membership in the International Amusement and Leisure Defense Association, Inc. (IALDA), a network of defense counsel and insurance professionals who concentrate their practices in the sports and entertainment field. IALDA members communicate confidentially regarding expert witnesses and other defense resources throughout the United States and Canada.
- Our litigators have played an innovative role in the development of national insurance programs in the amusement industry. Program administrators have relied on our expertise for drafting risk management guidelines and designing accident investigation and loss control programs. Most recently, we served as national counsel to the insurance program endorsed by the Roller Skating Association International.
- Our amusement industry clients have turned to us for advice on compliance with federal and state laws governing the amusement workplace. We have advised clients on compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and developed programs to deal with the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Results
Summary Judgment Secured in a Case Involving a Trampoline Park Injury
We obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury suffered at an indoor trampoline park. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected and inherent in an activity. In the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
Dismissal of All Claims Secured in a Personal Injury Action in New Jersey
We secured dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, in a personal injury action on behalf of a nonprofit organization operating youth baseball leagues in New Jersey. The plaintiffs sought to hold our client liable under a negligence theory after their minor child was injured while participating in our client’s recreational baseball league. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the league was a nonprofit organization entitled to protection under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act, which shields nonprofits from ordinary negligence. In opposition, the plaintiffs attempted to avoid dismissal by challenging the league’s nonprofit status, claiming the minor’s age created an exception to the Act. Through targeted arguments and documents evidencing the league’s nonprofit status, the court agreed that the Charitable Immunity Act applied and that the plaintiffs failed to show gross negligence to overcome the Act’s protections. The court granted the league’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and further agreed with our arguments that the volunteer coaches were independently shielded under New Jersey’s Volunteer-Coach Immunity.
Thought Leadership
Arbitration Near and Far: Fla.’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Issues Guidance for Arbitration Scope Disputes
December 3, 2025
In Urban Air Jacksonville v. Hinton, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal clarified the standard for determining the scope of an arbitration agreement in a dispute over whether activity was related or unrelated to an overall contractual agreement.
Case Law Alerts
Property Owner Not Liable for Injuries Caused by Unforeseeable Third-Party Vehicle Misconduct
October 1, 2025
The plaintiff, Jarvis Coleman, attended an event hosted by Via at an entertainment venue and, upon leaving the premises, was struck by a truck driven by another patron while waiting in line to exit the parking lot. Coleman claimed that Via negligently failed to implement traffic control measures and direct vehicle flow, which he alleged proximately caused his injuries. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that Via’s alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Coleman’s injuries because the intervening criminal and negligent actions of the third-party driver were unforeseeable and broke the chain of causation. The court emphasized that a defendant is generally not liable for harm caused by the extraordinary misconduct of third parties unless such conduct is reasonably foreseeable. Citing precedent, the court noted that premises owners cannot be expected to anticipate highly unusual or improbable vehicle behavior, such as a parked vehicle suddenly accelerating into pedestrians due to the actions of a passenger. Because the chain of events leading to Coleman’s injury was extraordinary and unforeseeable, the court concluded that Via could not be held liable as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed. The decision reinforces that property owners are not liable for third-party conduct that constitutes a superseding cause beyond the scope of foreseeable risk. Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.
