Liberty University Nalwa v Cedar Case Study Paper

You are replying to a students discussion board that has taken the position regarding the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP, 290 P. 3d 1158 – Cal: Supreme Court 2012, in which the student is supportive of the fact that the plantiffs in this case would be successful in their law suit.

You must use other case law to validate responding in support of this students initial post. Here is the students post you are creating a reply to:

a. What defense might be raised in this case? Explain.

There are three types of tort: intentional, negligent, and strict liability. Intentional tort would mean that the business in this case intentionally acted to cause harm to Nalwa and other customers. Intent would mean there is evidence that the defendant meant to act in a way that caused harm. Negligence is a situation in which the harm was caused my mistake, or unintentionally. Intent is missing in this case, however the lack of care still caused harm for another party or individual. In this case, harm was done to Nalwa. Finally, there is strict liability. This is a “no fault concept” where a party is responsible for harm even if there is not proof of carelessness. This is most often limited to unusually dangerous products and practices (McAdams et al., 2015).

In the Nalwa v. Cedar Fair case, it is likely that the defense may raise a case of negligence. On the park’s Rue le Dodge bumper car ride, there is obvious precautions in place to ensure safety. The terrain is flat and each car has a rubber bumper. Each car is also equipped with interior padding and seat belts for each person in the car. The ride was inspected annually for safety by state safety regulators, and was also inspected daily by the park’s maintenance and ride operations staff. It appears as though the park had no clear intention to hurt any of the passengers in the park. There is no evidence to show this. However, lack of instruction on how to brace oneself, for example, could be seen as carelessness that caused harm to the defense.

b. Should that defense be successful? Explain. See Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, 55 Cal. 4Th 1148.

According to “Law, Business, and Society,” there are four requirements that must be met to create a successful negligence claim: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. Duty means that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff. In this case, Cedar Fair has a duty to keep users of their park and rides safe. Breach of duty is when the plaintiff can show that the defendant breached the duty previously mentioned by failing to conform to reasonable standards. This can be both intentional or because of negligence. In this case, the defendant failed to provide instruction on how to brace oneself once bumped in a car. Causation is when the breach of duty resulted in harm for the plaintiff. Since Cedar Fair failed to provide adequate instruction, Nalwa hurt her wrist. Finally, injury in this case is physical proof that the plaintiff had damage to her body (McAdams et al., 2015). She fractured her wrist.

All four requirements needed to create a case for negligence exist, so the plaintiff’s case should be successful. The park had a duty to provide a safe place for this family to ride bumper cars. The park breached their duty by failing to advise users on how to brace themselves for a bump. The breach of duty caused the defense to obtain an injury. The injury is physical damage to Nalwa’s wrist.

References:

McAdams, T., Neslund, N., Zucker, K. D., & Neslund, K. (2015). Law, business, and society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

** I attached the Case this post/position is based on