Trampoline owners in Iowa and Kentucky have bounced away from liability for the broken ankle suffered by a 38-year-old woman as she landed from a jump and the broken leg of a seven-year-old girl.

In the Iowa case, a jury found Carol Hullinger 51 percent responsible for her ankle injury and the trampoline owners, Weston and Michelle Hintz, 49 percent responsible. Iowa follows a comparative negligence rule under which an injured party cannot recover damages if found 51 percent or more at fault.

Hullinger argued on appeal that the Clinton County trial judge should have granted her motion for directed verdict because the Hintzes failed to warn her that the trampoline was missing some springs and that it was dangerous for more than one person to be on it at the same time.

The plaintiff's expert testified missing springs could create hazardous “soft spots” on the surface of the trampoline, but the Hintzespresented expert testimony that six missing springs out of 96 had nothing to do with Hullinger's injury.

“[T]here was sufficient evidence presented to create a jury question as to whether missing and stretched springs created an unreasonable risk of injury and whether the Hintzes knew or should have known about this risk,” the Iowa Court of Appeals said last week in affirming the trial judge.

The court also upheld the jury's finding that Hullinger was at fault for jumping on the trampoline when her daughter and boyfriend were either jumping or standing on it. “Carol did testify she was aware that 'two people standing on the trampoline' while she was jumping could be dangerous to her,” the opinion said. “Thus, multiple people jumping at the same time was not her only concern.”

In Jefferson County, Ky., meanwhile, seven-year-old Katie Summers broke her leg in 1999 while jumping on a neighbor's trampoline without adult supervision. A jury rejected Katie's premises liability case against the neighbors, Najeh and Remah Lafit Alia, whose daughter was using the trampoline with her at the time of the accident.

The manufacturer warns jumpers not to use the trampoline unsupervised and that there should not be multiple jumpers. But the Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge in an October 19 decision that Katie was not entitled to a directed verdict, in part because

the evidence indicates that the Latif Alias did not know of Katie’s presence on their property until after the accident and that Katie was supposed to be under the supervision of her grandparents.

Earlier this year, another injured trampoline user had better luck in Ohio, where the 12th District Court of Appeal reversed summary dismissal of Connie Lykins's case against the manufacturer and owners of the trampoline.

Lykins testified she was not aware of the risk of “double bounce” when she stood on the perimeter of the trampoline while her brother was jumping in the middle of it.

“Appellant's testimony, as well as the expert evidence she submitted, indicates that the risks associated with the double bounce and with more than 225 pounds on the trampoline at a given time are not inherent in normal trampoline use,” the court ruled.

By Matthew Heller
10/31/07