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.
Successfully Resolved Highly-Publicized Wrongful Death Action in Florida
We successfully resolved a wrongful death case involving a 14-year-old boy who fell from an Orlando attraction, navigating a concurrent criminal investigation, state review, and intense media scrutiny on behalf of the ride's owner/operator.
Defense Sends Personal Injury Lawsuit Down Amusement Park’s Lazy River
Our attorneys obtained summary judgment relief on behalf of an amusements park in a lawsuit for alleged personal injury sustained at the park’s lazy river attraction. The plaintiff and his family were business invitees at our client’s amusement and water park. The plaintiff alleged he sustained injury when he attempted to board an inner tube on the lazy river attraction, which was staffed by certified lifeguards. The plaintiff claimed that the lifeguards negligently failed to assist and/or help him get onto the inner tube and were further negligent for failing to observe him while he attempted to do so. As a result of the lifeguards’ alleged negligence, the plaintiff claimed his inner tube flipped backwards, resulting in his head striking the floor of the shallow watercourse. During depositions, the plaintiff and his wife conceded that the extent of the lifeguards' assistance to visitors of the attraction was gathering vacant inner tubes and pushing them towards people waiting in line. Moreover, the plaintiff testified he made one initial unsuccessful attempt to climb on an inner tube before ultimately "over engineering it" on his second attempt, which caused the inner tube to flip backwards. The court agreed that under the "no-duty" rule, the lifeguards did not owe the plaintiff a duty because the alleged risks associated with climbing onto an inner tube in the lazy river attraction were common, inherent, expected or frequent risks associated with the activity. Furthermore, the plaintiff was unable to satisfy an exception to the no duty rule because he could not prove the employees deviated from an established custom or duty. The trial court's decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's claims, with prejudice, was ultimately affirmed on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Defense Knocks-Out Plaintiff
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a boxing gym. The plaintiff, a seasoned boxing coach, claimed to have been injured when he fell out of a boxing ring during a sparring match at the defendant’s gym. The plaintiff asserted that while standing on the apron with his back to the ring, he was struck by one of the fighters and propelled out and onto the floor. He alleged the defendant was negligent because the boxing ring was “too high” and the flooring surface “too hard.” In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found first that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff because Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on sports facilities to protect spectators from risks that are common, frequent, and expected, and that the circumstances surrounding the incident eliminate any duty on the part of the defendant. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s contentions that the boxing ring was too high or that the lack of padding on the surrounding floor was a deviation from an established custom. In fact, the evidence established that the boxing ring complied with national boxing regulations. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff did not appeal the decision.
