Skip to content

TortsDefenses

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 16, 1929 · Core case

Full citation

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 166 N.E. 173 (N.Y. 1929).

Quote pages are pages of 250 N.Y. 479, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 166 N.E. 173, find the page in that reporter.

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.

Murphy

visitor thrown on the flopperrespondent

Steeplechase Amusement Co.

coney island amusement park operatorappellant

The parties: Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co..

Brief

Facts

Steeplechase Amusement Company ran an amusement park at Coney Island. One attraction, the Flopper, was a moving belt that ran upward on an inclined plane. Riders sat or stood on it, and many could not keep their feet and were thrown backward or aside. Padded walls four feet high lined the belt, with padded flooring beyond them. Murphy, a vigorous young man, visited the park with friends. One of them, a young woman who is now his wife, said the party first stood watching. Some riders sat down or kept their footing; others jumped or fell, amid screams and laughter. She stepped onto the moving belt, and Murphy stepped on behind her. He felt what he described as a sudden jerk and was thrown to the floor. She and the friends behind him were thrown at the same time, but Murphy, less lucky, fractured a kneecap. His complaint charged that the belt stopped and started violently and suddenly and was not properly equipped to prevent injuries. His bill of particulars added a fast and dangerous speed and no proper railing or guard. The park offered evidence that power was transmitted smoothly. Its president said there had never been such an accident before. A nurse at the park's emergency hospital recalled other patrons hurt on the Flopper, none badly. Murphy also testified that he fell on wood, not padding.

Issues

  1. Can a person who joins an amusement and is hurt by its obvious, inherent risk of a fall recover from the operator in negligence?
  2. Was Murphy's testimony that the belt threw him with a sudden jerk, without more, an adequate basis for finding that the belt was out of order?

Holding

A fall was the very hazard that was invited and foreseen, and Murphy accepted it when he chose to ride the Flopper. His sudden-jerk testimony was no adequate basis for finding the belt out of order, and a jerk would add little anyway. The judgment for him on that theory could not stand.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Every plan includes the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/murphy-v-steeplechase-amusement-co