This is a very straightforward slip and fall case when the plaintiff fractured her leg at her son’s four-year-old birthday party. The plaintiff and her family went to the “Foam Frenzy” amusement attraction at a FunPlex owned by defendants.
Defendant asked the court, on summary judgment to dismiss the case because it did not breach their duty to provide a safe premises at the location. The judge commented that the very amusement attraction which brought the entire family to the defendant’s Funplex was for children ages four through 12 with adult supervision if necessary. The participant throw balls at each other hoping to strike or dodge another. The adult mother plaintiff was supervising in the very location of the foam balls when she slipped on one of the balls that was in the immediate area.
Plaintiff did hire an expert who provided an opinion that there was a dangerous condition created where the adults supervisors were standing because no clear pathway was present. The judge ruled based on the competent evidence that the defendant did not breach their duty of care based on the case law which states: “the duty of care requires a business order to discover and eliminate dangerous conditions and to maintain the premises in a safe condition in order to avoid creating conditions that would render the property unsafe”. Here the plaintiff was injured by the very activity that brought the family to the property. Plaintiff should have been aware of the balls and the attractive nuisance of the materials on the floor that were obviously in front of her at all times.
Although unfortunate, plaintiff was not able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, and survive summary judgment motion, that a duty of care existed, the defendants breach of the duty, that they breach of the duty was a proximate cause, of actual damages. In this case the very circumstances of the foam balls was what brought plaintive to the property.
Jeffrey S. Hark, Esq.