Torts

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. — Study Notes

250 N.Y. 479, 166 N.E. 173 (N.Y. 1929)

Study notes for Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A patron of an amusement ride assumes the inherent risks of the activity, barring recovery unless the operator concealed a danger or unreasonably increased the risk.
Professor Notes

This case fundamentally addresses the concept of 'assumption of risk' in tort law, specifically concerning amusement rides. The court emphasized that participants in activities with known, inherent dangers cannot pursue recovery for injuries sustained due to those risks unless they can demonstrate that the operator either concealed a danger or heightened the inherent risk. This concept reinforces the idea that individuals have a responsibility to understand and accept the risks associated with their voluntary participation in certain activities.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the concept of assumption of risk as it applies to this case.
  2. 2What specific factors did the court consider when determining whether Murphy assumed the risks associated with The Flopper?
  3. 3Discuss the significance of a 'concealed defect' in this case.
  4. 4How does this case affect liability for providers of recreational activities?
  5. 5Can you identify other cases that leverage the assumption of risk doctrine?
  6. 6What public policy implications arise from the court's ruling in this case?
  7. 7Explain how the court's ruling reflects societal attitudes toward personal responsibility in recreational contexts.
Mnemonic Device

Riders Assume Risks: No Concealment, No Liability.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Miller v. Civil Air PatrolIn Miller, the court found that the defendant's negligence created an additional risk beyond the inherent dangers associated with parachuting, allowing recovery.
Morrison v. HiggasonMorrison involved issues of misrepresentation about the safety of a ride, where the court found for the plaintiff due to a lack of informed consent.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Upholding the rule encourages personal responsibility and ensures that providers of recreational activities are not overly burdened by liability for risks that are well-known and understood by participants.

Against the Rule

Opponents argue that the rule may discourage safety improvements and hold operators accountable for their responsibilities to mitigate foreseeable risks to patrons.

Class Discussion Points
  • How does the court's reliance on the concept of voluntary assumption of risk reflect broader societal views on individual responsibility?
  • Discuss the implications of this case for the amusement park industry and injury claims.
  • Consider whether there are circumstances under which an operator could still be held liable despite the assumption of risk defense.
Exam Angle

This case is likely to be featured in exams as an illustration of how assumption of risk doctrine can bar recovery in tort cases, particularly regarding recreational activities. Be prepared to analyze the balance between inherent risks and duty of care.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.