Highlights

• Seeking legal advice soon after the accident ensures the timely collection of important evidence.
• Despite a legal precedent that trampoline parks carry inherent risk, Carbone Lawyers obtains a significant settlement for the client.

Summary

A man who broke his leg at a trampoline park wins damages after Carbone Lawyers argues the operators were negligent in their maintenance of equipment and customer safety procedures.

Case Details

The client (plaintiff) in this case was a 50-year-old father of three. He worked as a security guard and qualified electrician. The defendant was the operator of a trampoline amusement park.

As part of his daughter’s 12th birthday celebrations, the plaintiff went to the trampoline park accompanied by his two daughters and son, a cousin and two nephews. The trampoline park had a Ninja Warrior-type course, so the plaintiff, his son and one of his nephews decided to try it out.

Part of the Ninja course required participants to bounce from one trampoline, somersault over a vault wall to another trampoline and then, using the momentum, reach a much higher vault wall on the other side. However, there were no visible instructions explaining this and no trampoline park staff on hand to guide or stop customers from doing it incorrectly. 

With nothing to indicate otherwise, the plaintiff assumed he was supposed to jump off the vault wall onto the trampoline and then reach the higher wall. His son went first, bounced off the trampoline and pulled himself up to the higher wall. 

However, when the plaintiff, a 90kg adult man, attempted the same thing, the trampoline didn’t have adequate tension, and he sank heavily, hitting the ground below. The impact broke his right leg.

Fortunately for the plaintiff, he was referred to Carbone Lawyers soon after the incident. 

Carbone Lawyers engaged an engineer who attended the trampoline park a few days after the incident. Staff told him that the trampoline where the accident happened was out of operation as the springs were being replaced. He also noticed that a warning sign had been posted telling people not to jump off the vault. 

The engineer reported that the height of the trampoline was not at the industry standard and was lower to the ground than it should have been.

Carbone Lawyers was also able to find three witnesses to attest that the warning sign had only been erected following the incident. The operators of the trampoline park were unable to provide CCTV footage that would show otherwise. 

There was legal precedence for trampoline park accidents in Victoria. In a previous Court of Appeal case, the court had found in favour of the trampoline park operator because the plaintiff, in that case, had signed waivers. The courts had ruled that there was an inherent risk of injury from an activity such as jumping on a trampoline and, therefore, a voluntary presumption of risk. 

Accordingly, the defendant’s counsel, in this case, argued that when the plaintiff purchased the tickets, he had essentially agreed to the terms and conditions and had therefore waived his right to sue for injuries. However, Carbone Lawyers was able to show that the plaintiff had purchased the tickets over the telephone using his credit card and had at no stage been presented with any terms and conditions at the time of purchase. 

Carbone Lawyers also presented reports from several medical specialists on the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries and that he was unlikely to ever return to his previous employment.

Outcome

The case was successfully settled out of court, with damages being paid for pain, suffering and loss of income. The plaintiff was also awarded costs.