Manning Kass Team Prevails in Premises Liability Action Against Amusement Park

Associates Anna Kartoshkina and Bear Allen-Blaine recently secured summary judgment for our amusement park client in an alleged slip-and-fall incident. The amusement park featured a log flume ride, in which riders in a 20-passenger boat would ascend and descend, creating a large splash of water. Patrons who wished to be splashed by the falling boats could choose to stand on the bridge of an observation deck, an area coined the “Splash Zone.” 

At the time of the incident, safety signs were posted along the walkway and bridge of the Splash Zone, reading, “CAUTION. Slippery When Wet.” There were also numerous overhead light fixtures across the attraction. To further ensure patrons’ safety, a pre-opening maintenance inspection was performed on the ride daily, which the ride passed on both the day before and the day of the incident.

On the date of the incident, Plaintiff and her daughter were entering the Splash Zone when Plaintiff slipped and fell due to excessive water in the path, alleging extensive and severe injuries. Plaintiff was assisted by medical responders, who noted that she was wearing open-toed slide-on shoes with little traction. They examined the area and found no hazards, such as gathered puddles, algae, or other obstructions. Despite this, Plaintiff filed suit against our client, alleging general negligence and premises liability. 

Our team moved for summary judgment, reasoning that Plaintiff’s claims were barred as there was an inherent risk of traversing in the Splash Zone, the wet condition of the bridge was open and obvious, and Plaintiff possessed no evidence that our client’s actions were the cause of her injuries. Our motion further argued that patrons were warned to use caution due to the wet surface, and the area was well-lit. Plaintiff then alleged that she fell not only due to excessive water, but also because of an algae-like substance on the ground. She also contended that our client failed to submit evidence of the walkway’s visibility. 

The Court found in favor of our client, agreeing that Plaintiff had assumed the risk upon entering the area and that the wet condition was open and obvious. The Court declined to consider any arguments regarding the presence of algae as Plaintiff had not asserted that as a factor in her complaint, and it found that our client had, in fact, submitted evidence concerning the walkway’s visibility. Given these conclusions, the Court did not address the causation argument and granted our motion. 

About Our Team

Anna A. Kartoshkina is an Associate in the San Francisco office, specializing in Business Litigation, Premises Liability, Product Liability, and Retail, Restaurant, and Hospitality Litigation. She earned her Juris Doctor and LL.M. in International Law from European Humanities University, followed by a second LL.M. and a Business Law certificate from the USC Gould School of Law. Prior to joining the firm, she gained extensive experience managing complex civil and bankruptcy matters at a Southern California litigation boutique.

Bear Allen-Blaine is a member of our Appellate Law (Strategy, Writs, & Appeals) team. Her practice focuses on high-stakes, complex litigation matters, including premises liability, medical malpractice, governmental entity liability, transportation and trucking, and business litigation. As embedded appellate counsel, Ms. Allen-Blaine handles cases from initial law and motion through trial and appeals.