Segal McCambridge Secures Summary Judgment in Go-Kart Accident Case, Offering Key Takeaways for Operators

In a three-way summary judgment motion, Segal McCambridge's team, led by Shareholder Carla Varriale-Barker, prevailed in a go-kart accident case arising from an incident at Grand Prix New York Racing, LLC’s (“Grand Prix”) facility. The accident involved an 11-year-old who was improperly registered by his father to race on the “Teen Track,” which was restricted to drivers ages 12 to 15. Go-karts on the Teen Track traveled at a higher rate of speed and on a different course than those on the Junior Track.

There were no defects with the track itself. However, the infant plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and autism, lost control of his go-kart and collided with a track employee and a barrier. The barrier fell onto the go-kart and struck the infant plaintiff in the face. Although the infant plaintiff was wearing a helmet with a visor, the visor was flipped up and did not cover his eyes. He sustained an eye injury and alleged a traumatic brain injury.

Based on these facts, Segal McCambridge commenced a third-party action against the infant plaintiff’s father, seeking contribution and indemnification based on the father’s misrepresentation of the infant plaintiff’s age and the negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to a child.

At the close of discovery, the plaintiff, Grand Prix, and the father each moved for summary judgment. Only Grand Prix prevailed on its motion, meeting its prima facie burden through documentary evidence and an expert affidavit. The plaintiff attempted to introduce new theories of liability after the fact, but those efforts were untimely and rejected by the court. The court also denied the father’s motion for summary judgment, leaving the third-party claims for indemnification and contribution intact.

This case highlights the importance of proper registration procedures for family entertainment centers and go-kart facilities. To help keep operations “on track,” owners and operators should consider including indemnification language in waivers or agreements in the event a negligent entrustment claim is asserted later.