## Facts

- Susan Rossetti paid admission to Sesame Place, an amusement park operated by Busch Entertainment Corporation.
- Her admission entitled her to enter the park and use its attractions.
- Rossetti rode “Sky Splash,” a water-slide ride using oversized rafts for groups of patrons.
- During the ride, the raft rose and came down hard, jolting Rossetti and allegedly causing serious back injury.
- Rossetti sued Busch and Waterworld Products, Inc. (the ride’s manufacturer/designer), asserting negligence, UCC implied-warranty claims, and strict products liability.
- Waterworld did not appear, and judgment on liability only had been entered against Waterworld.
- Busch moved for partial summary judgment on the UCC warranty claim (Count II) and strict liability claim (Count III).

## Issues

1. Whether the purchase of an amusement-park admission ticket constitutes a “sale of goods” under UCC Article 2, permitting implied-warranty claims against the park operator.
2. Whether an amusement-park owner/operator that did not manufacture the ride may be held strictly liable for alleged defects in the ride under Pennsylvania law on the evidentiary record presented.

## Decision

- The court granted Busch’s motion for partial summary judgment on Counts II and III.
- The court held that park admission is a right of entry and participation in attractions, not a transaction in “goods” under UCC Article 2; the UCC implied-warranty claim against Busch failed as a matter of law.
- The court held that strict products liability did not attach to Busch on this record, including because Rossetti offered no evidence sufficient to justify imposing strict liability on Busch.
- The negligence claim (Count I) was not decided in this ruling.

## Legal Principles

- UCC Article 2 applies only to transactions in “goods,” meaning tangible and movable items identified to the contract.
- An amusement-park admission ticket is properly characterized as purchasing access and recreational services, not purchasing a tangible, movable good; implied warranties under UCC Article 2 do not arise from such a transaction.
- Strict products liability generally targets entities in the distribution chain of products; a recreational facility operator is not treated as a product seller without a basis to place it within product distribution or otherwise support strict-liability treatment.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment must produce evidence supporting the elements necessary to impose strict liability on the defendant.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that an amusement-park patron’s admission purchase is not a UCC sale of goods and therefore cannot support UCC implied-warranty claims against the park operator, and it dismissed strict products liability claims against the operator where the record did not support treating the operator as a product seller or otherwise imposing strict liability.


Rossetti v. Busch Entertainment Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 415 (E.D. Pa. 2000)