Negligence — Trampoline
Negligence — Trampoline
Where a defendant moved for summary disposition in a suit over a cervical spinal injury sustained at its indoor trampoline park, that motion should have been allowed because any failure to comply with the signage requirements of the Michigan Trampoline Court Safety Act did not cause the injury, the plaintiff was 50 percent or more responsible for his accident because of his intoxication and the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claim that the defendant’s equipment was defective or contributed to his injury.
“In this action arising from a trampoline injury, defendant Michigan Airtime IV, LLC appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse for the reasons stated in this opinion.
“Plaintiff Joshua Ray Cavins sustained a cervical spinal injury while attempting to perform a flip on one of Michigan Airtime’s trampolines at its indoor trampoline park. Michigan Airtime had posted signs at its facility stating instructions and warnings for patrons using the trampolines, as required by the Michigan Trampoline Court Safety Act (TCSA), MCL 691.1731 et seq.
“Cavins’ complaint asserted seven counts, which were predicated on two factual bases for recovery relevant to Michigan Airtime: (1) that Michigan Airtime failed to post sufficient warnings regarding the hazards of trampolining; and (2) that Michigan Airtime’s equipment was faulty.
“The evidence demonstrated that Michigan Airtime had one sign that fully listed all of the duties of trampoliners prescribed in MCL 691.1735, but had other signs that conveyed the same information, but without citing the TCSA or quoting its language verbatim. Assuming for purposes of this issue that the TCSA required Michigan Airtime to post more than one sign listing all of the prescribed statutory duties, Cavins must still establish that any noncompliance with this signage requirement was a proximate cause of his injury. Cavins’ only evidence of causation is his affidavit, in which he averred that he would not have attempted the flip maneuver if he had seen a sign informing him ‘to use the trampoline court within [his] own training and acquired skills.’
“We are not persuaded that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the absence of a second sign directly quoting and citing the TCSA was the proximate cause of Cavins’ injury.
“In conclusion, to the extent that Michigan Airtime was not in compliance with the TCSA by failing to post signs listing all of the prescribed statutory duties of trampoliners in multiple conspicuous places, because Cavins’ injury arose from his attempt to execute an advanced maneuver involving an aerial jump, and because signage in the Distortion section where he was jumping warned of the increased risk of injury from advanced maneuvers, including those involving aerial skills, and that such maneuvers should not be attempted before mastering single trampoline jumping, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether the alleged signage violation was a proximate cause of Cavins’ injury. The trial court, therefore, erred by denying Michigan Airtime summary disposition on this basis.
“Michigan Airtime argues that it was also entitled to summary disposition on the basis of Cavins’ intoxication because Cavins failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to overcome the presumption that he was intoxicated and that his intoxication rendered him 50 percent or more at fault for his accident.
“In this case, Michigan Airtime presented evidence that Cavins consumed two half pints of vodka between leaving work and arriving at the trampoline park, consumed yet more vodka in the parking lot at the facility, and registered a BAC of 0.21 at the hospital. This evidence established a rebuttable presumption of impairment under MCL 600.2955a(2)(b).
“Regardless of Cavins’ theory of liability, he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a defect with Michigan Airtime’s equipment on the date of his injury or whether any defect proximately caused his injury.
“In sum, Cavins failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact in support of any of his theories of liability against Michigan Airtime. Cavins cannot recover for any failure to comply with the signage requirements of the TCSA because he cannot establish a causal connection between the alleged signage violation and his injury and because there is no genuine issue of material fact that he was 50 percent or more responsible for his accident because of his intoxication. Plaintiff also failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claim that Michigan Airtime’s equipment was defective or contributed to his injury. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying summary disposition.”
Cavins v. BAT Commercial LLC; MiLW 08-108034, 10 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Feeney, J., M. J. Kelly, J., Rick, J.; on appeal from Oakland Circuit Court; Parisa R. Gold for appellant; Steven A. Hicks for appellee.
Read More: https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2024/06/07/negligence-trampoline-2/