Trampolines can be the cause of serious injury, especially to minor children. This case concerns liability for a trampoline accident involving neighbors. In 2003, the defendants hosted a backyard barbeque and invited friends over for a relaxing afternoon. The defendants owned a trampoline that came complete with set-up instructions and a user’s manual. The plaintiff began jumping on the trampoline with her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend. But, when she landed from a jump, she severely broke her ankle.
The plaintiffs sued for damages, and another neighbor testified at trial that the plaintiff had not been jumping very high and that the defendant admitted that there were six springs missing from the trampoline. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to warn anyone of the missing springs and had not properly enforced the rules. The jury determined that the plaintiff was 51% at fault for her own injuries. That meant any award of damages for her would be reduced by 51%.
On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly denied her motion for directed verdict before the case went to the jury, that the court should not have allowed the jury to determine comparative fault, and, in any event, the jury was given improper instructions for determining comparative fault. The defendant filed a cross-appeal, claiming that if the court were to reverse the trial court’s ruling, the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff’s expert to testify and erred in allowing some of a surgeon’s deposition statements.
The appellate court ruled that, since “reasonable minds could differ on resolution of the issue,” the trial court judge was proper in denying the plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict. The jury instructions called for the jury to find that the defendant was negligent if; (1) the trampoline was in a condition that presented an unreasonable risk of injury to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the risk was unreasonable; (3) the defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiff wouldn’t discover or realize the risk; (4) the defendant failed to maintain the trampoline and enforce the safety rules, and; (5) the defendant’s negligence was the “proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
The court reasoned that though the defendant knew the springs were missing, the defendant did not know that the missing springs would affect the trampoline’s performance. With respect to the danger of allowing multiple people on the trampoline, the court determined that this was a question for the jury. As to the validity of the jury’s determination that the plaintiff was 51% at fault for her injuries, there was enough evidence to support that finding because the plaintiff knew of the dangers of jumping on a trampoline with multiple people. Hullinger v. Hintz, No. 7-582/06-0926, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 1131 (Iowa Ct. App., Oct. 24, 2007).