A Voorhees man who was injured on a ride at Sahara Sam's in Berlin can continue his lawsuit, the state Supreme Court ruled.
A gross negligence case filed against Sahara Sam's Oasis water park by a man who was seriously injured on one of its rides can continue, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
Roy Steinberg suffered a major spinal cord injury while riding on the FlowRider simulated surfing ride at the Berlin amusement park in 2010. According to court documents, he stepped onto a flowboard and was handed a rope, which he wrapped around one wrist and held in his other hand.
However, he fell from the board within seconds, hitting his head on the bottom of the ride. As a result of the injury he is now an "incomplete paraplegic."
While Steinberg signed a waiver, which he admitted he did not read, before riding the Flowrider, he argued in his lawsuit that Sahara Sam's did not have proper safety signs displayed regarding the dangers of the ride and that the attendants did not instruct him properly on how to ride it.
He said that the attendants failed to tell him that as a first-time rider he should lie on his stomach on the body board, rather than standing on it, and that if he was standing on the flowboard, he should not hold the rope with two hands, court documents state.
An employee at the amusement park conceded that operators did not tell first-time riders that they should lie down on the board.
Also, the signs posted near the ride were from a 2007 operator's manual, despite the fact that a 2008 manual had been provided to Sahara Sam's with updated safety information, the documents show. The 2008 signs included more detailed safety warning language, including saying that a rider "will fall" rather than the possibility of a fall. The 2008 signs also included drawings that illustrate the danger of the ride and safety techniques of riding which were not in the 2007 signs.
A trial court initially ruled against Steinberg, saying the signing of a waiver eliminated his right to file a negligence claim, and a three-judge appeals court agreed in a split decision with one judge arguing that a gross negligence claim can be argued.
The Supreme Court agreed with the dissenting judge, ruling that a claim of gross negligence can be argued, reversing the appellate court's decision and sending the case back to trial court.
Rebecca Forand may be reached at rforand@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @RebeccaForand.Find NJ.com on Facebook.