Hayes v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc

D.C. Circuit

Hayes v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc

215 F.2d 34, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1954

Docket12030

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 F.2d 34 (Hayes v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayes v. Glen Echo Park Co., Inc, 215 F.2d 34, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant sustained personal injuries in the course of his descent on a water-slide located at the edge of a swimming pool in appellee’s amusement park, and sued the owner-operator for damages on account of negligence. The trial court found no negligence in the proof submitted by plaintiff. The slide was seventeen and a half feet high, had a slope of 40°, and had been in continuous use for- sixteen years without modification of its original design. No warning sign or instructions were posted on the slide, nor was there an attendant specifically assigned to the protection of its users. However, in the absence of a showing that there was a structural defect in the slide, due either to its design or to improper maintenance, these circumstances are insufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Further, “[t]he large number of patrons who were shown to have enjoyed the pleasure and excitement of the amusement device without mishap is evidence that, while reasonable care existed, the device was not inherently dangerous.” Carlin v. Smith, 1925, 148 Md. 524, 130 A. 340, 342, 44 A.L.R. 193. The trial court was correct in granting appellee’s motion for a directed verdict.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant sustained personal injuries in the course of his descent on a water-slide located at the edge of a swimming pool in appellee’s amusement park, and sued the owner-operator for damages on account of negligence. The trial court found no negligence in the proof submitted by plaintiff. The slide was seventeen and a half feet high, had a slope of 40°, and had been in continuous use for- sixteen years without modification of its original design. No warning sign or instructions were posted on the slide, nor was there an attendant specifically assigned to the protection of its users. However, in the absence of a showing that there was a structural defect in the slide, due either to its design or to improper maintenance, these circumstances are insufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Further, “[t]he large number of patrons who were shown to have enjoyed the pleasure and excitement of the amusement device without mishap is evidence that, while reasonable care existed, the device was not inherently dangerous.” Carlin v. Smith, 1925, 148 Md. 524, 130 A. 340, 342, 44 A.L.R. 193. The trial court was correct in granting appellee’s motion for a directed verdict.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 F.2d 34, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-glen-echo-park-co-inc-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack