 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brewer v. Myrtle Beach Farms Company8/30/2005
Heard June 17, 2005
AFFIRMED
Dawn Brewer appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Myrtle Beach Farms Company, Inc., doing business as the Myrtle Beach Pavilion, on her claims for negligence and inadequate warnings of the dangers associated with riding its roller coaster, the "Mad Mouse." We affirm.
FACTS
On July 31, 2000, Brewer was spending the day at Myrtle Beach Pavilion, an amusement park, while vacationing with her family when she decided to ride the Mad Mouse. The Mad Mouse is a ten-car roller coaster designed to speed around a track with hairpin turns at approximately 30 miles per hour. Several clearly visible signs near the entrance of the roller coaster warn that the Mad Mouse "BY ITS VERY NATURE CREATES FORCES & SPEEDS THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO SOME RIDERS WITH Pre-existing medical CONDITIONS" and those with neck or back problems "MUST NOT BOARD THE MAD MOUSE." Although Brewer had pre-existing back problems stemming from a car accident and "didn't want to get on it," she did not read or heed the warnings and boarded the roller coaster.
Despite a sign that warned riders to "SIT UP STRAIGHT WITH BACK & SHOULDERS AGAINST THE SEAT BACK WITH HEADS ERECT TO AVOID INJURY," Brewer was riding the Mad Mouse with her head leaning out of the side of the car and her eyes closed. The Mad Mouse went around a curve on the track and came to an abrupt stop that thrust Brewer against the lap bar restraint. Brewer waited on the stopped Mad Mouse for several minutes while Pavilion maintenance personnel inspected it. Then the Mad Mouse started up again and completed its trip around the track. After Brewer exited the ride, she spoke to maintenance personnel who informed her the Mad Mouse was completely controlled by a computer system, and the computer's safety mechanism had likely shut down the ride because one car was traveling at a higher rate of speed than another.
Brewer waited until the following day to see a doctor in the Myrtle Beach area who told her she had bruised ribs and gave her pain medication. When Brewer retuned home from vacation, she saw her chiropractor who diagnosed her with compressive spinal fractures.
On June 23, 2003, Brewer brought suit against the Pavilion and the roller coaster's designer S&S Power, Inc., formerly known as Arrow Dynamic, Inc., whom she later voluntarily dismissed, for injuries she sustained while riding the Mad Mouse. The Pavilion moved for summary judgment. At the hearing, William Avery, a safety expert, testified the ride's computer's safety feature engaged because of a possible mechanical, electrical, or operational malfunction but that he could not determine which possibility caused the Mad Mouse to stop. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Pavilion. This appeal followed.
LAW/ANALYSIS
1. Negligence
Brewer argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Pavilion. Brewer contends her expert presented specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. We disagree.
Summary judgment is inappropriate when facts are presented on which reasonable minds could differ. Allen v. Long Mfg. NC, Inc., 332 S.C. 422, 428, 505 S.E.2d 354, 357 (Ct. App. 1998). It is not enough that one create an inference which is not reasonable or an issue of fact that is not genuine. Id. at 429, 505 S.E.2d 357-58. "The judge is not required to single out some one morsel of evidence and attach to it great significance when patently the evidence is introduced solely in a vain attempt to create an issue of fact. . . ." Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 527, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|