SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The above-captioned matter is before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 41-18-60(E) (Supp. 2004) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2004) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner National Amusement Rides, LLC, challenges the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (Department), through its Office of Elevator and Amusement Rides, to deny Petitioner’s application for a permit to operate an amusement ride, known as the “Sling Shot,” in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly determined that the Sling Shot is a catapulting device prohibited by state law, and thus improperly denied its application to operate an amusement device on that basis. The Department maintains that it accurately concluded that the Sling Shot is a prohibited catapulting device, and therefore properly denied Petitioner’s application.

After timely notice to the parties, a hearing of this matter was held on April 12, 2005, at the South Carolina Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the evidence and arguments presented at that hearing regarding the nature of the Sling Shot’s operations, I find that the Department properly denied Petitioner’s application to operate the Sling Shot because the ride is a catapulting device prohibited by state law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this case, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1.On October 22, 2004, Petitioner National Amusement Rides, LLC, through its owner, William Prescott, submitted an application to the Department for the operation of an amusement device, known as the “Sling Shot,” at 1201 North Ocean Boulevard in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

2.The Sling Shot is an amusement device designed by Funtime Handels Gesmbh, an Austrian company. The ride consists of a spherical rider capsule, which is connected to two 200-foot-tall towers by steel cables attached to either side of the capsule. See Resp’t Ex. #4, Figures 1-2. Through a system of pulleys, these steel cables run down the towers and attach to a spring mechanism on the ground. See Resp’t Ex. #4, Figure 1. This spring mechanism consists of a number of steel springs that are tensioned by a hydraulic motor and that, when released from that tension, expand and contract so as to lengthen and shorten the amount of cable between the rider capsule and the ride’s towers, thereby causing the launching and oscillation of the rider capsule, which constitutes the “ride” provided to the passengers. See Resp’t Ex. #4, Figures 1-5; Pet’r Ex. #8, #9. A powerful electromagnet holds the rider capsule to the loading platform while passengers enter the capsule and while the springs are tensioned; the de-activation of this electromagnet releases the tension on the springs and commences the ride.

Passengers enter and are strapped into the rider capsule while it is secured to the loading platform with the electromagnet. Once the ride’s two passengers are safely harnessed into their seats, the spring mechanism is tensioned with the hydraulic motor and, “when the spring machine has tensioned the springs to a predetermined length,” the electromagnet is released, thereby launching the rider capsule “in a vertical trajectory.” Resp’t Ex. #5, at 4 (describing the operations of the Sling Shot, in the introduction to the manufacturer’s ride operations manual). After launch, the capsule oscillates with the expansion and contraction of the springs, reaching a maximum height of approximately 300 feet above the ground, and a minimum height of some 60 feet above the ground. After about three or four such oscillations, the capsule slows to a degree that the ride operator can slowly lower the capsule to the ground so the passengers can disembark from the ride.

3.By a letter dated November 29, 2004, Duane Scott, the administrator of the Department’s Office of Elevator and Amusement Rides, denied Petitioner’s application to operate the Sling Shot as an amusement device. The Department issued this denial based upon its conclusion that the Sling Shot is a catapulting device specifically prohibited from operating in South Carolina by state law.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

The instant case is essentially one of statutory construction. There is no dispute between the parties as to the mechanics of the Sling Shot’s operations, or to the safety of the Sling Shot as an amusement device. Indeed, the parties agree that, upon successfully completing a final inspection, the Sling Shot would meet the amusement ride licensure requirements of the South Carolina Amusement Rides Safety Code. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 41-18-10 to 41-18-150 (Supp. 2004). Rather, the dispute in this matter is over whether the catapulting ride provided by the Sling Shot is specifically prohibited by S.C. Code Ann. § 52-19-50(5) (Supp. 2004), a statute found in the state’s regulation of bungee jumping in Chapter 19 of Title 52. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 52-19-10 to 52-19-380 (Supp. 2004). Petitioner argues that, despite the references to wire rope, cables, and springs in Section 52-19-50(5), that section should be read narrowly to apply only to catapulting rides using elastic bungee cords, and, thus, should not be read to prohibit the spring-operated mechanism of the Sling Shot. The Department, however, contends that the plain language of Section 52-19-50(5) specifically prohibits the operation of catapulting devices like the Sling Shot in South Carolina, whether those devices are operated with bungee cords or with steel cables and springs. I find that, under a plain, ordinary reading of the terms in the statute, Section 52-19-50(5) does prohibit the operation of the Sling Shot in South Carolina.

In interpreting a statute, “[w]ords must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction which limits or expands the statute’s operation.” State v. Landis, 362 S.C. 97, 102, 606 S.E.2d 503, 505 (Ct. App. 2004). And, “[w]hen faced with an undefined statutory term, the court must interpret the term in accord with its usual and customary meaning.” Id. Further, a court should seek a construction “that gives effect to every word of a statute rather than adopting an interpretation that renders a portion meaningless.” Hinton v. S.C. Dep’t of Probation, Parole & Pardon Servs., 357 S.C. 327, 342, 592 S.E.2d 335, 343 (Ct. App. 2004). In the case at hand, Section 52-19-50(5) defines “bungee catapulting” or “reverse bungee jumping” as

the sport, activity, or practice whereby a person is attached to a bungee cord or wire rope or cable or springs or other devices similar in design or use which is stretched and then released, thus catapulting or otherwise launching the jumper or passenger into the air from a fixed position.

S.C. Code Ann. § 52-19-50(5) (emphasis added). Having defined bungee catapulting, Section 52-19-50(5) further provides, in clear, certain terms, that “[b]ungee catapulting is prohibited in this State.” Id. Petitioner argues that, because the steel cables and springs of the Sling Shot do not “stretch” in a technical sense, like elastic bungee cords, this provision cannot be construed to apply to the Sling Shot. However, I conclude that, taken in their plain, ordinary, and customary meanings, the terms of Section 52-19-50(5) do prohibit the operation of spring-based catapulting devices like the Sling Shot.

In the Sling Shot, a person is attached, through the rider capsule and steel cables, to a spring mechanism that is “stretched and then released” by the hydraulic system, thus catapulting the person into the air from a fixed position. While Petitioner may be correct that, on a molecular level, the steel in the Sling Shot’s cables and springs does not “stretch” in a technical sense, the expansion or uncoiling of the springs in the Sling Shot’s spring mechanism is a “stretching” of those springs as that term is understood in its plain and ordinary sense. In fact, this customary use of the term “stretch” to describe the uncoiling of a spring is found in literature related specifically to the spring mechanism of the Sling Shot. See Resp’t Ex. #3, at 5 (referring, in an inspection report from a German testing firm, to the “non-stretched length of the springs” in the Sling Shot); Resp’t Ex. #4, at 22 (describing, in the manufacturer’s own operations manual, the “Spring Stretch Test” to be performed on the Sling Shot). Further, the reference to springs in Section 52-19-50(5), and elsewhere in Chapter 19 of Title 52, would be rendered meaningless under a construction of the statute that finds that springs cannot be “stretched” and thus cannot provide the mechanism for a prohibited catapulting device. See S.C. Code Ann. § 52-19-50(5) (defining “bungee catapulting” as the practice of attaching a person to “a bungee cord or wire rope or cable or springs . . . which is stretched and then released”) (emphasis added); cf. S.C. Code Ann. § 52-19-20 (Supp. 2004) (defining “bungee jumping” as the practice of releasing a person into the air while attached to an elastic bungee cord, wire rope, cable, or springs “whereby the cord, wire rope, cable, spring, or other device similar in design or use stops the fall, lengthens and shortens, [and] allows the person to bounce up and down”) (emphasis added). Plainly, the statute contemplates that springs can “stretch” as that term is customarily used. § 52-19-50(5). Moreover, it is clear that, whatever the scope of Section 52-19-50(5) when it was originally enacted, the current version of Section 52-19-50(5) does not narrowly limit its application to catapulting devices and practices that purely use elastic bungee cords, but broadly prohibits all catapulting devices that launch persons into the air from a fixed position, whether those devices use rubber bungee cords, steel springs, or any “other devices similar in design or use.” S.C. Code Ann. § 52-19-50(5). In short, whether parsed closely or read broadly, Section 52-19-50(5) prohibits the operation of spring-operated catapulting devices like the Sling Shot in South Carolina.

Therefore, as Section 52-19-50(5) explicitly prohibits the operation of the Sling Shot in this state, and as this specific statute prohibiting catapulting devices controls over the general amusement ride licensing provisions, see Wooten v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 333 S.C. 464, 468, 511 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1999) (“A specific statutory provision prevails over a more general one.”), I find that the Department properly denied Petitioner’s application to operate the Sling Shot ride in Myrtle Beach.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application to operate an amusement device, known as the “Sling Shot,” at 1201 North Ocean Boulevard in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, is SUSTAINED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge

Post Office Box 11667

Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667

May 18, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina