McCune v. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range, Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
McCune v. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range, Inc., 612 S.E.2d 462 (2005)
In a negligence suit, a defendant may assert as a defense that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. Depending on the jurisdiction, this defense can serve as a complete bar to recovery or as an assertion of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence. In McCune versus Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range, the South Carolina Court of Appeals considered whether a plaintiff’s express assumption of risk barred her from recovering in a suit against a shooting range.
The Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range offered paintball matches where participants would shoot small dye filled capsules that break on impact called paintballs at one another. The range also rented face masks and other types of protective equipment to match participants.
In the early 2000s, Christine McCune participated in a paintball match with her husband and friends. Before participating, McCune rented a face mask and was required to sign a general waiver that released the range from liability from all known or unknown dangers for any reason, unless the range was grossly negligence.
During the match, McCune noticed that her mask was loose and didn’t fit well. She attempted on numerous occasions to have the mask tightened or replaced but was unsuccessful in doing so.
While playing, McCune’s field of vision was obscured by the mask, and she accidentally ran into a tree branch, causing the mask to rise off her face and get caught on the branch. While the mask was off her face, McCune was struck in the eye by a paintball, causing her to go blind.
Subsequently, McCune sued the range in state circuit court for negligence and strict liability, claiming that the range negligently failed to ensure that her mask fit properly and protected her during play. In response, the range asserted the defense of assumption of the risk and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the waiver and McCune’s own negligence barred her recovery.
The court granted the motion, concluding that the waiver showed McCune expressly assumed the risks associated with playing paintball and that her own comparative fault barred recovery. McCune appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/mccune-...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/mccune-...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel ► czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries