This is a positive outcome; CA is a state that seems to support inherent risk assumption, but proper signage alerting riders of the assumed risk may play an important role in triggering that assumption. While some inherent risk seems obvious, with “notice” being unnecessary, erring on the side of caution with posted signs of the inherrent risk assumed by participation avoids that debate. We advise our clients to post signs and, where possible, to use waivers, so that the assumption of inherent risk from particiaption is clearly noted. Although states vary in their support of this legal position, notifying riders of the inherent risk assumed is a good risk mitigation practice.
Common sense finally prevails!
This is a positive outcome; CA is a state that seems to support inherent risk assumption, but proper signage alerting riders of the assumed risk may play an important role in triggering that assumption. While some inherent risk seems obvious, with “notice” being unnecessary, erring on the side of caution with posted signs of the inherrent risk assumed by participation avoids that debate. We advise our clients to post signs and, where possible, to use waivers, so that the assumption of inherent risk from particiaption is clearly noted. Although states vary in their support of this legal position, notifying riders of the inherent risk assumed is a good risk mitigation practice.
“The court also said the park could have done more to reduce the threat of a head-on collision.”
Did the court really say anything about reducing the threat of a head-on collision on BUMPER CARS? REALLY???
What collisions could they not do more to reduce?