Gardner v. G. Howard Mitchell, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 153 A. 607 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. G. HOWARD MITCHELL, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Plaintiff, having entered an electrically controlled amusement device known as a "Dodgem" for the purpose of bumping and dodging like contrivances operated by others, has, in the absence of negligence by the owner, no cause of action against the latter for an injury received in the course of, and as a result of, the normal movement of the game.
Syllabus by the Court.
The facts of the case reviewed, and held not to show negligence on the part of the owner.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Middlesex County.
Action by Alma Gardner against G. Howard Mitchell, Incorporated. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Ackerson & Van Buskirk, of Keyport (Cecil S. Ackerson, of Keyport, on the brief), for appellant.
John E. Toolan, of Perth Amboy, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by her in an amusement resort at Ocean Grove. Appellant's first point is that the trial court erred in denying the motions for a nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict in favor of the defendant. We shall proceed to consider the motion for a direction of verdict, as that is the inclusive reason under this point.
Plaintiff, with a girl relative, entered defendant's premises and got into a contrivance known as a "Dodgem." The device consists of a small circular car operated by the rider and propelled by electric current which, from a network of wires forming the ceiling, is carried through a pole affixed to the car. The occupants of the car have control of direction but not of speed. The mechanism is such that the cars cannot move at a greater speed than six or seven miles per hour. There is a pedal by which an occupant, by appropriate pressure, may put the car in motion or bring it to a dead stop. Subject to this individual control, all cars start at the same time and move at approximately the same speed. When the ride, which lasts three minutes, is over, the power is thrown off and all the cars, of necessity, stop. Each car has a large rubber bumper five and one-half to six inches in diameter around the outside as a protection against too forceful collision. The car is arranged for two passengers, and the pole, with a rubber covering three-eighths inch in thickness, is in the center on a barricade two and one-half inches back of the back of the car. The distance from the pole to the outer edge of the bumper is nine inches. The use of the cars involve something of a game which consists of bumping into others cars and, as the name of the contrivance indicates, of attempting to dodge from the bumps of other cars. The defendant's resort was then operating its first season and amongst its approximately 136,000 patrons had not had a single accident.
The plaintiff and her friend entered the premises while the cars were in motion, and, when the latter came to a stop, entered one of them and had a three-minute ride with no untoward consequence, although there was the usual dodging and bumping. The cars then came to a stop, and plaintiff could have discontinued the ride but did not do so. In due course the cars were again put in motion, and during the period of this activity the car in which plaintiff was riding was bumped by another car, causing a hurt to plaintiff's head and arm. It is suggested that the injury was caused by plaintiff's head being thrown against either the pole of plaintiff's car or that of the colliding car. However, the incident seems to have passed without special notice, as plaintiff continued her ride to its finish and no complaint was made by her or her friend or by her father, mother, and another relative who were standing at the rail looking on. The incident was in no way called to the attention of the management until two months later.
The complaint broadly alleged negligence by the defendant in failing to warn the plaintiff of any latent or inherent danger, in failing to supervise and control the device with proper skill and caution, in failing to provide proper padding or upholstery, in failing to provide proper guards to supervise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP, H034535
...plaintiff] had independent control of the motion of the scooter she was using." (Id. at pp. 738-739.) Similarly, in Gardner v. G. Howard Mitchell, Inc. (N.J. 1931) 153 A. 607, the plaintiff's claim for injuries resulting from being bumped during a Dodgem bumper car ride were held to have be......
-
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP
...had independent control of the motion of the scooter she was using.” ( Id. at pp. 738–739.) Similarly, in Gardner v. G. Howard Mitchell, Inc. (1931) 107 N.J.L. 311, 153 A. 607, the plaintiff's claim for injuries resulting from being bumped during a Dodgem bumper car ride were held to have b......
-
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.
...on their minor inherent risks. As for the rest: “The timorous may stay at home.” ( Ibid.; see also Gardner v. G. Howard Mitchell, Inc. (N.J.Err. & App.1931) 107 N.J.L. 311, 153 A. 607, 609 [plaintiffassumed risk of bumping on a “Dodgem” ride: “It was for the thrill of bumping and of the esc......
-
Atlanta Funtown, Inc. v. Crouch, s. 42166
...two bumps or dips); Hook v. Lakeside Park Co., 142 Colo. 277, 351 P.2d 261, 86 A.L.R.2d 339) ('loop-o-plane'); Gardner v. G. Howard Mitchell, Inc., 107 N.J.L. 311, 153 A. 607 ('Dodgem' bumper cars); Murphy v. White City Amusement Co., 242 Ill.App. 56 ('The In Murphy v. White City Amusement ......