Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

New York Court of Appeals · 1929 · Torts

Tortsassumption of riskprimary assumptionCardozoamusement parkvolenti non fit injuriaassumption of riskamusement park injuries

Facts

The defendant operated an amusement park attraction called "The Flopper," a moving inclined belt on which riders sat or stood and many lost their footing and fell, with padded walls and flooring alongside. The plaintiff watched others use the device, saw riders jump or fall amid screams and laughter, and then stepped onto the moving belt behind a companion. He fell, fractured his kneecap, and alleged negligence on the theory that the belt stopped and started violently, moved at a dangerous speed, and lacked proper guards or railings. The case was submitted on the theory that a sudden jerk of the belt caused the fall.

Issue

May a plaintiff recover for injuries suffered on an amusement ride when the injury resulted from a fall that was an obvious and inherent risk of the attraction, and the only negligence theory submitted was that the moving belt gave a sudden jerk? Was there sufficient evidence of negligent operation outside the ordinary, accepted risks of the sport?

Rule

One who voluntarily takes part in a sport or amusement accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary. Recovery is not allowed for harm from such inherent risks unless the danger is obscure or unobserved, or the circumstances show some hidden defect or unusual danger beyond what the participant accepted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a seaside fair in Atlantic City, Nora Kim watched patrons try a rotating platform called the "Slip Disk," where the attraction was to make riders lose balance and slide onto cushioned sides. After observing several people stumble while the crowd laughed, Nora stepped on, immediately fell, and broke her wrist.

If Nora sues the operator for negligence on the ground that the attraction was unreasonably dangerous because it caused participants to fall, what is the strongest argument for the operator under the governing rule?

Explanation. One who voluntarily takes part in a sport or amusement accepts dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary. Here, the entire point of the attraction was the risk of losing balance and falling, and Nora saw that before joining. Under the majority's rule, injury from that ordinary, foreseen hazard is not actionable absent some hidden defect or unusual danger beyond what she accepted. (Derived from Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (1929).)