A Kamloops woman is suing the Interior Provincial Exhibition for an alleged accident after riding the Slingshot at the IPE Days in September 2018.
Shawna Marie Palmer rode the caged, reverse bungee ride, operated by West Coast Amusements, three times on Sept. 2, 2018, the file submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia said. But on the third go, “the seating cage hit hard on the ground.”
But the defendants deny every allegation, according to the response filed July 11, 2019. West Coast Amusements, IPE Association, the City of Armstrong, Thrill Masters Inc. and the ride operators, listed only as John Doe No. 1 and 2, said it was the rider who was negligent.
The Feb. 4, 2019, plaintiff report claims Palmer suffered a concussion, dizziness, pain and injuries to her back and neck, soft-tissue damage, headaches, sleep disturbance and general pain and stiffness. These injuries have caused her loss of enjoyment in life, permanent physical disability and loss of earnings “both past and prospective.”
Since the alleged accident, Palmer claims she hasn’t been able to maintain household chores such as yard work and other maintenance and she has incurred medical and out-of-pocket expenses related to medical care.
Now she is seeking financial relief to cover lost wages and future lost wages, general and special damages, past and future health care service costs and costs associated with housekeeping and the lawsuit.
The accident, the plaintiff argues, was caused by the negligence of the ride operators, owners and event organizers, as they failed to take reasonable care to ensure the rider’s safety and ensure she was properly secured in the ride. The plaintiff also argued the defendants failed to conduct proper inspections and ensure the ride was functioning properly to “eliminate the hazardous state of the Slingshot” and “render the ride safe for use.”
Particulars of her negligence, according to the defendants, include failure to exercise reasonable care for her safety, failing to keep a proper lookout or paying attention to her surroundings, failure to use safety equipment and exercise a degree of caution called for in the circumstances.
“Defendants deny that the plaintiff suffered or continues to suffer any injury, loss, damage or expense as a result of the accident, as alleged or at all,” the court document reads.
Defendants argue the ride was up to code and “the Slingshot was reasonably safe for use by all persons, including the plaintiff, and that no part of the Slingshot posed an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone.”
Furthering the argument, defendants claim if the woman is, in fact, suffering injury and loss it was caused by a pre-existing condition and wasn’t made any worse by the ride.