{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Murphey vs. Steeplechase Amusement

Murphey vs. Steeplechase Amusement - other device to...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 14:01:30 rmf34 Murphey vs. Steeplechase Amusement Judge(s): Court: Court of Appeals of New York (Location, Date): April 1929. Plaintiff : James Murphy, and Infant, by John Murphy, His guardian ad Litem, Respondent Case Summary : One of the attractions is called “The Flopper,” moving belt running uphill on a plane on which passengers sit or stand. It is difficult to stand and passengers are thrown against padded walls to either side. Plaintiff knew that there was risk and fell and broke his patella. He states that the ride starts violently and it was not properly equipped to prevent injuries to persons not knowledgeable of its dangers. It was operated at a fast and dangerous rate of speed, and it was not equipped with a proper railing or
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: other device to prevent a fall. There was no basis or finding the belt to be out of order. One who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers, people were standing around watching, and he was not seeking a quiet amount of time. People were visibly tumbling around on the ride. He took the chance. The timorous may stay at home. Volenti non fit injuria. Defense : Steeplechase Amusement Co. Inc. An amusement park on Coney Island, New York Verdict : He knew the dangers it was clearly a risk and the park was not liable. It was working property. Plaintiff will not receive any damages. Law and Economics Notes :...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online