Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1929

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

166 N.E. 173 | 250 N.Y. 479 | 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 904

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a patron of an amusement attraction assumes its obvious, inherent risks—here, falling—unless there is adequate proof of a hidden defect, negligent operation, or danger beyond what the patron knowingly chose to encounter.

Background

Steeplechase operated an amusement park at Coney Island and offered an attraction called the “Flopper,” an inclined moving belt on which patrons attempted to sit or stand as it carried them upward. The belt was surrounded by padded walls and padded flooring. Falling and tumbling were part of the attraction’s evident amusement value.

Murphy, a vigorous young man visiting with friends, stepped onto the already-moving belt behind the woman who later became his wife. He and several others fell at about the same time, and Murphy fractured his kneecap. He alleged that the belt stopped and started violently, operated too fast, and lacked adequate rails or guards. The case was submitted to the jury on the theory that a sudden, sharp jerk showed negligent operation, and Murphy obtained a judgment that the Appellate Division upheld.

The Court of Appeals reversed both lower-court judgments and ordered a new trial. Although Murphy testified that he landed on exposed wood rather than padding, that possible equipment defect had not been the theory submitted to the jury and was not fairly encompassed by his bill of particulars.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Murphy produced sufficient evidence that the Flopper malfunctioned through a sudden, negligent jerk.

Holding

No. Murphy’s description of a “sudden jerk” was insufficient to establish that the belt was defectively or negligently operated.

Reasoning

The belt was already moving when Murphy stepped onto it. In the confusion of immediately falling, his characterization of the event as a “jerk” did not reliably distinguish a mechanical irregularity that caused the fall from the ordinary force experienced as a result of the fall itself.

The defendant offered evidence that the belt transmitted power smoothly and could not operate otherwise under normal conditions. If the belt had moved spasmodically, that would have been an extraordinary and unexplained departure from normal operation, requiring stronger proof than Murphy’s brief description of his sensations during a sudden accident.

Even if a jerk had been proved, it would add little because the principal danger of the attraction was falling. The case could not properly rest on an inference that every fall from an amusement device designed to make patrons tumble resulted from negligent operation.

Issue #2

Whether Steeplechase was liable for injuries caused by the obvious and inherent risk of falling on the Flopper.

Holding

No. Murphy voluntarily accepted the obvious and necessary risk of falling when he chose to participate in the attraction.

Reasoning

The Court treated the Flopper’s purpose as unmistakable: patrons tried to keep their footing on a moving inclined belt while others fell, and the tumbling, screams, and laughter supplied the entertainment. The attraction’s name, the conduct of riders, and the spectacle observed by Murphy’s group all warned that a fall was a central risk of the experience.

A person who voluntarily engages in a sport or amusement accepts the dangers that are obvious and inherent in it. Just as a fencer accepts the risk of an opponent’s thrust and a ballgame spectator accepts the chance of being struck by a ball, Murphy accepted the risk that he would fall and suffer the ordinary bodily harm that a fall might cause.

The Court distinguished a case involving hidden or unobserved hazards, or an inherently extreme danger that would require special precautions. Nor did the evidence of occasional, generally minor injuries among roughly 250,000 yearly visitors establish that the Flopper was so dangerous that it could not safely continue without alteration.

Issue #3

Whether Murphy’s testimony that he fell on unpadded wood supported the judgment obtained at trial.

Holding

No. A possible defect in the padding could support a different theory of liability, but it was not the theory submitted to the jury in this case.

Reasoning

Murphy testified that he struck wood rather than canvas padding. If credited, that testimony could show a nonobvious defect in the equipment, because padding was intended to reduce the force of a foreseeable fall and should have been maintained in repair.

But Murphy’s pleadings and bill of particulars charged negligent speed, sudden stopping and starting, and inadequate guards; they did not fairly present defective padding as the basis of liability. The jury instead received the case on the theory that a sharp jerk established negligence.

Because the verdict rested on an unsupported sudden-jerk theory, the Court reversed rather than affirming the judgment. It ordered a new trial, leaving open the possibility that a properly presented claim based on defective padding could be litigated.

Dissents

Judge O'Brien

Reasoning

Judge O'Brien dissented, arguing that judge O’Brien dissented solely on the authority of Tantillo v. Goldstein Brothers Amusement Co. The reported opinion gives no separate explanation of his reasoning, but his reliance on that precedent reflects his view that it required a disposition different from the majority’s rule of voluntary acceptance of the Flopper’s risks.