Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Nairn

Citations: 717 N.E.2d 525; 307 Ill. App. 3d 296; 240 Ill. Dec. 432Docket: 4-98-0675, 4-98-0717 cons.

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 7, 1999; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christa Ford, a minor, represented by her father Dennis Ford, filed a lawsuit against trampoline owners Jerry and Betty Nairn and trampoline manufacturer Jumpking, Inc., seeking damages for knee injuries sustained while using the trampoline. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and products liability, asserting that the Nairns failed to maintain the trampoline safely and did not warn of potential hazards, particularly regarding "double jumping." Jumpking was accused of not providing adequate consumer warnings about the same risks.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that the Nairns had no duty to warn Christa about the inherent dangers of trampoline use, which were deemed open and obvious, especially since Christa was a teenager. Additionally, the Nairns were protected under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act for the use of their personal property. The court later found that Jumpking's warnings were sufficient and that the trampoline was delivered in a safe condition, with no causal link established between the alleged inadequate warnings and Christa's injury.

The plaintiffs appealed both summary judgment orders, while the Nairns appealed a related third-party complaint from Jumpking, which was found moot. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments and dismissed the moot appeal. The evidence primarily consisted of deposition testimonies.

Christa, aged 14, testified that on November 8, 1992, she jumped on a trampoline at the residence of defendants Jerry and Betty Nairn, after being invited by her friend Angie Gulledge. Upon arrival, they sought permission from the Nairn's youngest daughter, Allison, who relayed their request to another family member, receiving a positive response. Christa called her mother, stating that Jerry Nairn was home and had given permission. Although it was her first visit to the Nairns' home, Christa had previous trampoline experience.

Initially, Christa and Angie jumped separately for about 10 minutes until Christa Nairn and Toni Frank joined them. They engaged in jumping stunts, with Christa expressing a desire to jump higher, facilitated by Toni’s encouragement. During an attempt to jump higher, Christa experienced sharp pain in her knee upon landing, attributing the injury to a lack of stability on the trampoline mat. She acknowledged previously stating that she "came down on it wrong," noting that her foot's positioning caused her knee to give out.

Christa observed no defects in the trampoline, and the pads appeared intact. While she noted the presence of some warning tags, she did not actively look for instructions. Jerry Nairn testified that he purchased the trampoline in 1992 and received a user manual and warning placards, which were placed on the wall near the trampoline rather than directly on it. He indicated that a warning was sewn onto the mat, but he could not recall its content. Jerry claimed he could monitor trampoline usage from his home and had instructed his children against double jumping. Betty Nairn corroborated Jerry's testimony regarding the receipt of safety materials at the time of purchase. Jerry was unaware of the accident, and he did not recall Angie requesting permission for Christa to use the trampoline.

Betty stated that warnings against double jumping were posted on a placard and decal on the house near the trampoline. She and Jerry enforced a rule prohibiting double jumping, which their children understood. The trampoline's user manual emphasized that only one person, weighing under 275 lbs., should use the trampoline at a time, and it was the owner's responsibility to inform users of all safety instructions and warnings. The manual reiterated the dangers of multiple users, highlighting risks of collisions and falls. The warnings complied with ASTM Standard F381-84. The legal standard for granting summary judgment involves a de novo review, requiring strict construction against the movant and liberal construction in favor of the opposing party. The existence of a duty to warn is a legal question, with no duty if the danger is open and obvious. The determination of this duty relies on an objective analysis of an ordinary person's awareness. The plaintiffs argued that a previous court ruling in Johnson v. Decatur Park District found that trampolines present a non-obvious risk, but that case involved a minitrampoline with different risks and skill requirements. The court distinguished between the risks associated with a round recreational trampoline and those of a minitrampoline, noting significant differences in their use and hazards.

Trampolines, particularly round ones designed for recreational use, are primarily utilized by individuals for basic jumping rather than complex maneuvers, requiring a modest skill level. The inherent risks associated with trampoline use, such as falling from a height or performing tricks, are deemed open and obvious to users, including teenagers. Illinois case law, specifically *Fallon v. Indian Trail School*, established that trampolines are not considered abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous when used as intended. Numerous cases from other jurisdictions support the notion that the dangers of trampoline use are recognizable, even to children, negating the need for specific warnings from manufacturers or owners.

In evaluating the duty to warn, Illinois law applies an objective standard focused on the awareness of an ordinary user—in this case, a reasonable 14-year-old—who would understand the risks involved. Consequently, the court found no duty for the defendants, Jerry and Betty Nairn and Jumpking, to provide warnings about the obvious dangers of trampoline use, affirming that the warnings they provided were sufficient. The court did not determine the applicability of the Recreational Use Act regarding potential liability protections for the Nairns, nor did it explore whether a causal link existed between the alleged inadequate warnings and the injuries sustained by Christa Ford. The appeals were dismissed as moot, with summary judgment orders in favor of the defendants affirmed.