Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.
55 Cal. 4th 1148, 290 P.3d 1158, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to recreational activities, including bumper car rides, where inherent risks cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering the activity, imposing on operators only a duty not to unreasonably increase the risks beyond those inherent in the activity.
Facts:
- On July 5, 2005, Dr. Smriti Nalwa (plaintiff) took her nine-year-old son and six-year-old daughter to Great America amusement park, owned and operated by Cedar Fair, L.P. (defendant).
- Plaintiff and her children went on the park’s Rue le Dodge bumper car ride, which consisted of small, two-seat, electrically powered vehicles with rubber bumpers, padded interiors, and seatbelts.
- Plaintiff rode as a passenger in a bumper car driven by her son, while her daughter drove a separate car.
- During the ride, plaintiff’s car bumped into several other cars.
- Toward the end of the ride, plaintiff’s bumper car was bumped from the front and then from behind, causing her to brace herself by putting her hand on the car’s dashboard.
- Plaintiff's wrist fractured during these collisions.
- Head-on bumping was prohibited on the Rue le Dodge ride, and ride operators were instructed to enforce this rule by lecturing or removing persistent offenders.
- Defendant operated bumper car rides at its four other amusement parks with cars that could only be driven in one direction, minimizing head-on collisions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Dr. Smriti Nalwa, filed a lawsuit in superior court (trial court) against defendant Cedar Fair, L.P., alleging causes of action for common carrier liability, willful misconduct, strict products liability, and negligence.
- Plaintiff later dismissed the two strict products liability counts.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action, concluding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred recovery for negligence, that the heightened duty of care for common carriers did not apply, and that there was no willful misconduct.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment in a divided decision, holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply to bumper car rides.
- Defendant, Cedar Fair, L.P., petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the primary assumption of risk doctrine apply to recreational activities such as bumper car rides, thereby limiting an amusement park operator's duty of care to participants to only avoiding an unreasonable increase in the risks inherent in the activity, and does this limited duty extend to preventing head-on collisions?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
Yes, the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to bumper car rides, limiting the amusement park operator's duty to not unreasonably increase the risks inherent in the ride, and this duty does not extend to preventing head-on collisions because such collisions are inherent to the activity. The Court held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine is not limited to sports but applies to any recreational activity involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity. Low-speed collisions are inherent to bumper car rides, and eliminating this risk would fundamentally change the ride's character, as the "point of the bumper car is to bump." The existence of state safety regulations for amusement parks does not preclude the doctrine's application, as regulations aim for relative safety from grave injury, not perfect immunity from minor inherent risks. Furthermore, a bumper car ride operator is not considered a common carrier, unlike a roller coaster operator, because bumper car riders actively control their vehicles and do not surrender their movement to the operator, thus not entrusting their safety from low-speed collisions to the park. The operator's limited duty is not to eliminate inherent risks, but to not unreasonably increase them. Head-on collisions are considered an inherent aspect of a multi-directional bumper car ride, not an extrinsic risk that the operator has a duty to eliminate. Voluntary efforts to discourage head-on bumping do not establish a legal duty to prevent them. Therefore, defendant did not breach any duty, and summary judgment was proper for negligence, willful misconduct (which relied on the same duty), and common carrier liability.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the no-duty-for-sports rule (primary assumption of risk) should not be extended to a bumper car ride because it is not a sport, and the determination of which risks are "inherent" in a recreational activity is fact-intensive and unsuitable for pretrial resolution. Justice Kennard reiterated her longstanding objection to the Knight v. Jewett rule, arguing it transformed California tort law by replacing the traditional, consent-based assumption of risk defense with a limited-duty rule decided by judges before trial. She contended that determining "inherent risks" is a difficult, fact-dependent task, varying significantly with participant demographics and conditions, making it ill-suited for resolution as a matter of law on summary judgment. The dissent questioned the majority's policy rationale that potential tort liability would "chill" recreational activities, citing legal scholarship that doubts this claim. Under the traditional common law assumption of risk, the focus would be on what specific risks the plaintiff consciously and voluntarily assumed, rather than a judge-determined "inherent risk." The dissent concluded that the no-duty-for-sports rule should not be expanded to a bumper car ride, as it fundamentally alters the standard of care without sufficient justification.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine beyond traditional sports to encompass other recreational activities, such as amusement park rides. It reaffirms the doctrine's core policy—to prevent tort liability from chilling participation in activities with inherent risks—and emphasizes that operators are not obligated to eliminate fundamental aspects of an activity, even if those aspects carry a risk of minor injury. The decision also clarifies that the heightened duty of care owed by common carriers does not extend to rides where participants retain active control, distinguishing them from passive experiences like roller coasters. This ruling will likely make it more challenging for plaintiffs injured in a variety of recreational settings to successfully sue operators for ordinary negligence, requiring them to demonstrate that the operator unreasonably increased the inherent risks rather than merely failing to prevent risks fundamental to the activity itself.
