Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligenceappealtrialcase lawduty of care
negligenceliabilityappealtrial

Related Cases

Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 311 S.E.2d 571
View Case »
Reed v. Hinderland, 135 Ariz. 213, 660 P.2d 464, 37 A.L.R.4th 555
View Case »
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ameron Pole Products LLC, 43 Cal.App.5th 974, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,785, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,324, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,137
View Case »
Hollerud v. Malamis, 20 Mich.App. 748, 174 N.W.2d 626
View Case »
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP, 450 S.W.3d 291

Facts

In August 2000, Jessica Chavez visited Oceans of Fun with her relatives and rode the Hurricane Falls raft ride. During the ride, her mouth collided with her cousin's head, resulting in injuries that required extensive dental work. Ms. Chavez filed a negligence claim against Cedar Fair, alleging that the park failed to provide adequate safety measures and warnings. The trial court instructed the jury to assess Cedar Fair's negligence using the highest degree of care, which Cedar Fair contested as incorrect.

In August 2000, twelve-year-old Jessica Chavez went to Oceans of Fun in Kansas City with relatives, including her aunt and her cousins. The first and only ride Ms. Chavez rode that day was the Hurricane Falls raft ride.

Issue

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury to apply the highest degree of care standard for negligence instead of the ordinary degree of care standard?

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury to apply the highest degree of care standard for negligence instead of the ordinary degree of care standard?

Rule

The appropriate standard of care in negligence cases is generally the ordinary degree of care, which requires a defendant to exercise the care of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

The appropriate standard of care is a question of law. Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co–op., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 158 (Mo. banc 2000).

Analysis

The court determined that the trial court's instruction to the jury to apply the highest degree of care was erroneous. It noted that amusement park operators, including Cedar Fair, owe only an ordinary duty of care to their patrons, as established in prior case law. The court emphasized that the ride in question was not inherently dangerous and that the standard of ordinary care was sufficient to protect patrons.

The application of the ordinary degree of care standard as first articulated in Berberet has been followed by this Court in other decisions pertaining to the liability of both owners and operators of places of amusement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the ordinary duty of care is the proper standard in negligence actions against amusement park operators.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the trial court erred in submitting a jury instruction with the 'highest degree of care.'

Who won?

Cedar Fair, LP prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the trial court had erred in applying the highest degree of care standard.

Cedar Fair, LP prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the trial court had erred in applying the highest degree of care standard.

You must be