Wodnik v. Luna Park Amusement Co.

Citations

• 69 Wash. 638
• 125 P. 941
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 968

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Dangerous Premises—Amusement Park—Liability op Owners—Negligence op Lessees. The owner of an. amusement park impliedly represents that advertised instrumentalities for amusement are reasonably safe, and cannot avoid liability for injury received through the unsafe condition of a mallet, used in connection with a striking machine, by the fact that the machine was operated by a lessee of space under an independent contract; since the lessee would be the agent of the owner.</p> <p>Same—Unsape Appliances—Negligence—Evidence—Res Ipsa Loquitur. Negligence is established, on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where the head of a mallet, used in connection with a striking machine in an amusement park, flew off when an attempt was made to use it for the purpose for which it was furnished, the burden of explanation being cast on the defendant.</p> <p>Same — Assumption op Risks — Inspection. A patron in an amusement park does not assume the risk from an unsafe mallet which he is invited to use in connection with a striking machine, where there was no defect so patent that he ought to have observed it without inspection, the duty of inspection resting upon the owners of the park.</p> <p>Same—Contributory Negligence. In such a case he is not guilty of contributory negligence in taking hold of the mallet handle near the upper end, where he had no reason to assume that the head would fly off, and there was no evidence that he was not using it as it was intended to be used.</p>