Anyone who has ever been to a water park appreciates there are a lot of different ways to get hurt.  But recently, in Mussara v. Mega Funworks, a New York appellate court held that because the type of dangerous condition was “unique,” plaintiff’s lawsuit was not barred by the assumption of risk doctrine and could proceed.

As the plaintiff exited the water slide, he was thrown across a 50-foot pool and hit the cement on the other side. The water park argued that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury when he rode the slide. The park posted a warning sign and the plaintiff admitted that he checked the sign but did not read the warning. 

Nevertheless, the court ruled against the water park and held that the assumption of risk doctrine does not apply where the dangerous condition posed by the ride is unique and is “over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in riding down a water slide.”  

In this case, the court ruled, the plaintiff  had not assumed the risk of being thrown across a pool because there was no evidence that he was aware of that possibility.   Indeed, the Court list a number of potential ways that a person might expect to get hurt at a water park, but this wasn’t one of them.  Rather, the plaintiff only assumed the risk that he would be injured despite the slide working as intended.

Thanks to Mendel Simon for his contribution to this post.  If you would like further information, please write to