This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P visited D's amusement park and decided to go on the Penguin's Blizzard River ride. The ride is comprised of an elevated chute with rushing water and three loops. After an inflated raft is released, the raft 'twist[s], spin[s], [and] splash[es]' through the loops at a high rate of speed. Ultimately, the raft is deposited into a long, flat channel that leads to a 'boathouse.' As Ps' raft was making its descent, the raft in front of them became stuck for some unknown reason. The rafts collided. Ms. Deciutiis (P) sustained injuries to her neck and back, and her daughter hit her head. Two years and 11 months after the incident, P, individually and as the parent of her child, filed a complaint for personal injuries because of the D’s negligence. Before jury selection, D made an oral motion for judgment, arguing that P needed an expert to explain the cause of Ps' injuries. P contended that an expert was unnecessary because she would prove D's negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. D claimed that res ipsa applies only if an injury 'was caused by an instrumentality exclusively in the defendant's control and D did not have exclusive control over all aspects of the ride, such as the operation of individual rafts. D also claimed that res ipsa loquitur does not apply 'in cases concerning the malfunction of complex machinery' such as elevators, escalators, and amusement park rides with rafts that ascend on conveyor belts and descend over running water, through a downward-sloping chute with multiple turns. D claimed that in such cases, 'an expert is required to testify that the malfunction is of a sort that would not occur absent some negligence.' P argued that D exercised exclusive control over the ride, because 'they installed the ride in the park. They operated the ride. They have maintained the ride. They have people stationed [on the ride.]' She argued that, 'this is an event of an injury and a collision that would not normally happen without somebody doing something wrong in operating the ride.' She did not rebut D’s claim that the case involved the alleged malfunction of complex machinery, which required expert testimony. The court held that D was not in exclusive control of the raft with which Ps’ raft collided and held that P needed, but did not have, an expert to prove her case. The court dismissed Ps’ case, and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.