TORT OF NEGLIGENCE

The Tort of Negligence
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
The Tort of Negligence
In the case of Nalwa v Cedar Fair, the most appropriate defense strategy that the defendant that is Cedar Fair could use is the comparative negligence strategy. This is where the plaintiff’s (Nalwa) recovery is reduced to the degree to which she is at fault in causing the said injuries. “The specific comparative negligence strategy is the pure strategy in which Nalwa will only be compensated for the damages that the defendant (Cedar Fair) is responsible for,” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, 2012).
“Feeling a need to brace herself, plaintiff put her hand on the car’s “dashboard.” According to the plaintiff’s son, “something like cracked” and plaintiff cried out, “Oh.” Plaintiff’s wrist was fractured” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, 2012). Nalwa intentionally placed her hand on the car’s dashboard. This defense strategy should be successful because the defense can easily prove to the court that Nalwa was partly to blame for the injury she sustained because she decided to place her hand on the car’s dashboard in the first place. Had she not done this her hand would not have been fractured, and this case would not be before the court.
The potential product liability issue that can be identified in this case is the faulty operation system of the bumper rides. This system was faulty because it allowed the bumper rides to move in different directions and this is what brought about the collision. Had the systems been operated in such a way that the bumper rides could only move in one direction the head-on collision could have been avoided and no injuries would have occurred.

To establish this, claim the plaintiff can establish in court that Cedar Fair offered the bumper ride activity as one of their services yet the owner was aware of the faults that existed within the bumper ride operating system. “Fifty-five injuries were reported occurring on or around the Rue le Dodge ride in 2004 and 2005, including contusions, lacerations, abrasions and strains” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, 2012). Nalwa can also inform the court that her injury was not the first to occur while in the bumper ride and that in 2004 and 2005 other injuries had occurred and the only difference was that the other injuries were not a fracture. These elements would establish Nalwa’s claim for product susceptibility.

Reference
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair. (2012). SMRITI NALWA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., Defendant and Respondent. Supreme Court Of California.