Amusement Park Operator Owed Ordinary Care, Not Highest Standard Of Care To Injured Patron In Missouri
The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a jury verdict in favor of a 12-year old plaintiff who sustained injuries while on an amusement park ride. The court determined that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to assess the defendant’s alleged negligence using the highest degree of care standard instead of an instruction on ordinary care. The case involved a water slide ride on which the plaintiff was injured when another of the raft’s passenger’s heads came into contact with her mouth while the ride was being hoisted up a splash wall. The claims including negligence against the park owner and operator for failure to provide friction devices reasonably sufficient to prevent a raft rider from colliding with another passenger and failure to adequately warn of the risk of harm from colliding with other raft riders.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows, “The term negligence means the failure to use the highest degree of care. The phrase highest degree of care means that degree of care that a very careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances.” The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the court’s precedent rejected the highest degree of care standard for amusement park operators and held that they only owed a duty of ordinary care in the circumstances to their patrons. In Missouri, the highest degree of care standard had been extended only to common carriers, electric companies, users of explosives, users of firearms, and motor vehicle operators. Concluding that the ride was not inherently dangerous and that the operator was not a common carrier, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case.
One of the judges dissented on the grounds that the highest standard of care instruction was appropriate given that the plaintiff was entirely dependent on the park operator for her safety because it controlled the slide ride as both owner and operator, and essentially was in the same shoes as a common carrier.
