Image Credit: Tiffany Goodwein / Vernon Matters)

By Tiffany Goodwein - Vernon Matters

IPE Suit

Kamloops woman suing IPE, West Coast Amusements over ride injury

Nov 18, 2019 | 6:57 AM

KAMLOOPS — A Kamloops woman has filed a suit in B.C. Supreme Court against the Interior Provincial Exhibition (IPE).

According to court documents originally filed in February 2019, the plaintiff, Shawna Marie Palmer, rode the Slingshot ride with a friend three times on Sept. 2, 2018. On the third occasion, the seating cage “hit hard on the ground,” resulting in an injury, her claim said.

The Slingshot is described as a ride that seats two people in a cage attached to cables. The ride then shoots the two riders enclosed in the cage up and down in a bouncing motion.

The plaintiff claims the incident resulted in a concussion, dizziness, pain and injury to the back and neck, soft tissue injury and pain, headaches, sleep disturbances, and general pain and stiffness. The claim states the injury caused the plaintiff pain, suffering, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, permanent physical disability and loss of past and future earnings.

“The plaintiff has been less able to manage household chores including but not limited to yard work and general household chores and maintenance,” the claim says.

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: The icon who is Taylor Swift

Nov 17, 2024

Two and Out

PETERS: Business owners shouldn't be held responsible for nuisance calls

Nov 15, 2024

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: November 14, 2024

Nov 15, 2024

West Coast Amusements, The Interior Provincial Exhibition Association, the City of Armstrong, and Calgary-based ride manufacturer Thrill Masters Inc. are listed as defendants in the case.

The plaintiff claims the incident was caused by negligence caused in whole or in part by the defendants. Eight allegations were listed under the legal basis of the suit. It states the defendants failed “to ensure the plaintiff was properly secured in the ride,” the defendants “caused or allowed the Slingshot to become or remain in a dangerous condition,” and that the defendants failed to provide adequate instructions on how to remain safe on the ride.

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, compensation for past and prospective loss of income, healthcare costs, and past and loss of housekeeping capacity.

The defendants filed a response to the claim in which they deny any wrongdoing and state any such injury, loss or damage was not as a result of any act, omission, or negligence by the defendants. Any alleged injury, the defendants argue, was due to a previous incident involving the plaintiff and the defendants had no part in aggravating any pre-existing condition while the plaintiff was on the ride.

In the response, the defendants argue negligence on behalf of the plaintiff including failing to exercise reasonable care for her own safety, failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to pay sufficient attention to her surroundings, and failing to utilize safety equipment to ensure safety on the ride.

None of the allegations has been tested in court.