Under section 65(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a trader cannot by a term of a consumer contract or by a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. This applies even if notice of the term is given to the consumer (section 65(2)). Therefore, the theme park operator's defence based on the exclusion clause is unlikely to succeed. It is appropriate to apply for summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) if the claimant can establish that the defendant's case is so weak that it has no real prospect of succeeding. Given the clear legal provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Robert Jones has a strong basis for summary judgment. Filing this application before case allocation is ideal because it can be heard simultaneously with the allocation hearing/case management conference, potentially saving on costs. If successful, the issue of quantum (the amount of damages) can still be determined separately. Filing a Reply to Defence and making a Part 36 offer (Option C) is not as effective because it commits your client to unnecessary litigation, contrary to the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct. Applying for summary judgment (Option D) is a more strategic approach given the strong legal position. 

Key Point: Section 65 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 prohibits excluding liability for personal injury due to negligence, making a strong case for applying for summary judgment if the defence is weak.