Bell v. Cedar Fair, LP

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 3112

Syllabus

The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park on the basis that the patrons failed to establish that the cell phone came from a rider on the roller coaster. There was a reasonable inference to support the patrons' claims and credibility issues are reserved for the role of the factfinder, not the court on summary judgment. However, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park for a different reason. In this case, the patrons failed to present expert testimony to establish the relevant standard of care. This was necessary because duty of care concerns the adequacy and placement of protective netting, a matter requiring specialized knowledge beyond the understanding of an ordinary juror.