Ruling bounces trampoline case back to trial court.

Reprinted from The Times, Saturday, April 22, 2006

Ruling bounces trampoline case back to trial court.

Robert Schwaneberg, Newhouse News Service

Homeowners who fail to warn guests about the dangers of backyard trampolines can be sued if someone takes a bad bounce and get hurt, a state appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling reinstated a lawsuit filed by Mary Ann Bagnana against her former Maple Shade neighbors over a knee injury she sustained while using their backyard trampoline during a backyard barbecue in May 1998.

She claims Jennifer and Fred Wolfinger, the hosts of the barbecue and owners of the trampoline, never warned her it was dangerous for 2 people use it at the same time. According to the ruling, Bagnana and her husband, Stephen, were both jumping on the “14 foot diameter trampoline when she suffered serious injuries to her right knee”. Banana’s lawyer, Sal Daidone of Vorhees, said the case illustrates one of the hidden dangers of trampolines. “What nobody knows is if 2 people jump and they get out of sync, the person coming down is going to experience about 5,000 pounds of pressure per square inch on their legs,” Daidone said. He said that impact caused his client’s upper and lower legs to separate requiring her to undergo surgery to replace torn ligaments. “She walks with a limp, and eventually will need knee replacement surgery” Daidone said.

A lower court judge threw out the case, ruling Bagnana must have been aware of “inherent” dangers of using a trampoline. In reinstating the lawsuit yesterday, a three judge appeals court said “this is not a case were the evidence is so -one sided- that the defendants must prevail as a matter of law.”

Appellate Division Judge Ronald Graves wrote that a reasonable jury could conclude the (owners) Wolfingers “knew or should have known that their trampoline posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the plaintiff, that the risk was not obvious, that plaintiff did not recognize the danger, and that defendants breached their duty to either disclose or remove the danger.”

Graves said the trampoline came with a yellow warning placard stating only one person at a time could use it. During pre-trial questioning Jennifer Wolfinger testifies her son hung the warning placard on a shed but “it kept falling off” so he put it inside the shed. Daidone said he dropped a lawsuit against the manufacturer because it had provided the required warning, insulating it from liability under state law. He added that the appeals court ruling only gives him the right to a trial at which the homeowners can argue Bagnana must have known the risk of using the trampoline. Such cases are difficult to win, Daidone said, because jurors learn so much about the hidden dangers of consumer products during the trial that they tend to forget they were unaware of them at the start.

It’s only my opinion:

Moral:

Professional Gyms MUST warn of risks and must PROVE they warned of risks to both the parent and child. Even if the owner of the tramp wins, they are out HUGE $$ in legal fees.

People who have backyard trampolines are going to pay more in homeowners insurance.