A couple may be liable for a 12-year old neighbor’s trampoline accident, where their 6-year old son invited the neighbor to “jump with him,” the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.
The son was jumping on the trampoline unsupervised, in an unenclosed area of the yard. He invited the neighbor to
join him, and she fell and injured her knee.
The girl’s mother sued, alleging both premises liability and liability for having an attractive nuisance. The couple claimed that the girl was a trespasser and that the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply.
But the court disagreed, remanding the case for further action.
“Although [the son] was only six years old, his parents left him alone in the unfenced backyard. [His] age might suggest to an adult that he lacked authority [to invite someone into the yard]. But [the plaintiff's daughter] is also a minor. A landowner’s greater duties to children may arise ‘taking into account the abilities, age, experience and maturity of the child’ …
“‘[T]he reasonableness of [the 12-year-old girl's] belief that she had permission to jump on the [neighbors'] trampoline by virtue of [the 6-year-old boy's] invitation … presents a genuine issue of material fact that precludes a determination of her status as a matter of law.’”
Furthermore, the court found that the attractive nuisance doctrine might apply.
“[T]he particular risks associated with jumping on a trampoline are not necessarily open and obvious to children, particularly to those who have never jumped before. … [A] child may be lulled into thinking a trampoline is safe by watching others jump without incident or injury … In this case the designated evidence conflicts regarding whether [the girl] could have appreciated the dangers of jumping on a trampoline, particularly with multiple jumpers. … Although [she] admits she had watched [the boy] jump prior to her accident, there is no evidence that [she] witnessed any injuries or had seen multiple jumpers on the trampoline. …
“The [defendants] have [also] not shown that it is unreasonable to assume that children would be attracted to a large trampoline that sits in the middle of an open yard, particularly when there is an unsupervised child regularly jumping on it.”
Indiana Supreme Court. Kopczynski v. Barger, No. 88S05-0710-CV-42. June 4, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 99310056.
Credit: Lawyers USA Staff
Written by robb
Topics: Stories