Buffalo homeowners who allow children – or even older teens – to use a trampoline should be aware that any injury suffered as a result may give rise to liability. This fact was well-demonstrated in the recent ruling of the Nassau County Supreme Court in Hallwood v. Daniels, 15462/09.
In that case, a 14 year old boy was playing on a trampoline at a friend’s house with three of his friends. The mother of one of the boys was at home but apparently not observing their activities. They decided to climb onto the roof of a nearby one story garage and jump onto to the trampoline from there. Two of the boys had done this before, but the plaintiff had not. The boys told the plaintiff he did not have to jump if he did not want to, but he insisted.
Upon hitting the trampoline, the plaintiff’s knee struck his jaw. He ultimately required two crowns and teeth implants. Years later, he continues to suffer from headaches.
The owners of the trampoline sought to have the case dismissed by the court based on a theory that the teen was old enough and smart enough to be aware of the risk of his actions, but chose to proceed anyway. The court, however, declined to dismiss the case under these circumstances.
This decision was based on judge’s finding that “the combination of the defendants being at home when the incident occurred and the close proximity of the trampoline to the one-story garage and ladder and/or low fence may have created a zone of apparent danger for which a jury may find the defendants to be liable.”
As a result, sufficient questions of fact existed for the case to be heard by a jury.
{ 0 comments… add one now }