You are replying to a students discussion board that has taken the position regarding the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP, 290 P. 3d 1158 – Cal: Supreme Court 2012, in which the student is supportive of the fact that the plantiffs in this case would be successful in their law suit.
You must use other case law to validate responding in support of this students initial post. Here is the students post you are creating a reply to:
Typically, product liability claims are brought under the theories of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty. In the Nalwa v. Cedar Fair case there is proof of negligence against Great America amusement park. On July 5 2005, plaintiff, Dr. Smriti Nalwa took her children to the amusement park, owned and operated by Cedar Fair. That afternoon Nalwa and her children went on the park’s Rue le Dodge bumper car ride. Nalwa rode as a passenger in a bumper car that was driven by her son. Towards the end of the ride, Nalwa braced herself by putting her hand on the car’s dashboard as the bumper car was bumped from the front and then from behind. Nalwa’s wrist was fractured as a result (SMRITI NALWA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., Defendant and Respondent., 2012).
In order to win a negligence case Nalwa must prove the following four elements:
Duty- The plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of due care to the plaintiff (McAdams, 2015). Cedar Fair had a strict no head-on bumping safety rule on the Rue le Dodge ride. If a guests were driving recklessly, operators were to enforce the safety rule by stopping the ride and asking the person to leave. That afternoon the operator did not stop the ride (SMRITI NALWA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., Defendant and Respondent., 2012).
Breach- Defendants breaching a legal duty by acting or failing to act in a certain way. On July 5 2005 the operator failed to enforce the safety rule. At no point did the operator stop the ride or show concern over the reckless driving.
Causation- Defined as the defendant’s actions that actually caused the plaintiff’s injury. Due to the operators lack of detail, Cedar Fair is responsible for the injury. Since the Rue le Dodge ride has a higher risk of injury employees at Cedar Fair may need more training to operate this ride.
Damages- The plaintiff was harmed or injured as a result of the defendants actions. On the afternoon of 5 July 2005, Dr. Smriti Nalwa sustained a fractured wrist from the Rue le Dodge ride at Great America in California.
Cedar Fair was aware of the risk of the Rue le Dodge ride. From 2004 to 2005 there was reporting’s of fifty-five injuries that occurred on the Rue le Dodge ride to include contusions, lacerations, abrasions and strains. Due to the fact that Cedar Fair is aware of the dangers and risks of this ride they are responsible for the injuries that Nalwa withstood.
After reviewing each of the four elements of negligence, Dr. Smriti Nalwa has enough facts to support her case. Cedar Fair breached their duty by not enforcing the safety rule of no head-on bumping while the ride was in motion. This breach of duty caused an injury to Nalwa. A fractured wrist, depending on the severity, can take up to 6-12 months to regain motion. This will cause Dr. Smriti Nalwa to lose income since she will be limited to her motion of her wrist. Operators at Cedar Fair need to pay close attention when the ride is functioning for the safety of their customers.
Reference
Defects in Design. (n.d.). Retrieved from Find Law: https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/defec…
McAdams, T., Neslund, N., & Zucker, K.D (2015). Law, Business and Society Eleventh Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
SMRITI NALWA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., Defendant and Respondent., S195031 (Supreme Court of California December 31, 2012).
*** I have included the case that this post was related to.
