Ford v. Nairn

Citation: Not availableDocket: 4-98-0675

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

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Christa Ford, a minor represented by her father Dennis Ford, initiated legal action seeking damages for injuries Christa sustained while using a trampoline owned by defendants Jerry and Betty Nairn. They claimed the Nairns failed to maintain the trampoline in a safe condition and did not warn of potential hazards. Additionally, they alleged negligence and products liability against Jumpking, Inc., the trampoline’s manufacturer, for not adequately warning users about the risks associated with simultaneous jumping, known as "double jumping."

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, determining that the Nairns had no duty to warn Christa about inherent dangers, which were deemed open and obvious, and that they were shielded from liability under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act. The court also found that Jumpking’s warnings were appropriate and that the plaintiffs did not prove a causal link between the warnings and Christa's injury. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgments, while the Nairns appealed a third-party complaint by Jumpking, which was ultimately dismissed as moot. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on both summary judgments.

The case's evidence largely comprises deposition testimonies from the involved parties. Christa, then 14 years old, testified that on November 8, 1992, she jumped on a trampoline at the home of defendants Jerry and Betty Nairn after being invited by her friend Angie. They obtained permission from Allison, the Nairns' youngest daughter, who relayed their request to another family member. Christa had never been to the Nairn residence prior but had experience with trampolines.

Initially, Christa and Angie jumped separately for about 10 minutes before Christa Nairn and Toni Frank joined them. Christa described performing stunts and jumping in pairs or groups, including attempts to jump higher at Toni's suggestion. During a jump, Christa injured her knee upon landing, experiencing a sharp pain. She acknowledged in a prior statement that she "came down on it wrong," attributing the injury to the way she landed, noting that there was "no give" in the trampoline.

Christa observed no defects in the trampoline, confirming that the pads were intact and it appeared in good condition. She recalled minimal warnings and labels, admitting she did not actively look for them. In contrast, Jerry Nairn testified that he purchased the trampoline in 1992 and received a user manual and warning placard. He placed the placard on a wall next to the trampoline, as he deemed attaching it directly to the trampoline impractical. Warning decals were positioned on the trampoline, though he could not recall the specifics of the mat's sewn warning. Jerry stated he could see children using the trampoline from inside his home and had no knowledge of Christa's accident or of Angie's request for permission. He had instructed his children against double jumping and confirmed they understood the rules associated with trampoline use.

Betty Nairn acknowledged having received the user's manual, placard, and decals upon purchasing the trampoline, and confirmed that both the placard and decal were displayed near the trampoline. She and her partner, Jerry, enforced a rule against double jumping, emphasizing that warnings indicated its dangers and that their children understood this rule. The user's manual specified that only one person, weighing less than 275 lbs., should use the trampoline at a time and that owners are responsible for ensuring all users are informed of safety warnings and instructions. The placard reiterated this rule and cautioned against the risks associated with multiple users, aligning with ASTM Standard F381-84. 

The legal standards for summary judgment require a de novo review, with all factual issues being construed in favor of the non-moving party. The determination of a duty to warn is a legal question, with no duty existing if the danger is open and obvious. The objective analysis of whether a trampoline presents an open and obvious risk involves assessing the typical user's awareness. The plaintiffs referenced the case Johnson v. Decatur Park District, where the court found that the risks associated with a mini-trampoline used for gymnastics could not be deemed open and obvious, as it involved unique risks requiring a higher skill level than typical recreational activities.

Control of the case hinges on distinguishing between mini-trampolines and round recreational trampolines. Mini-trampolines are designed for use in gymnastics and require higher skill levels, while round trampolines are used for recreational jumping without the intent to perform acrobatics. The risks associated with round trampolines, such as falling from a height or collisions during double jumping, are deemed open and obvious to users, particularly teenagers and adults. 

In reviewing Illinois case law, the court references *Fallon v. Indian Trail School*, where it was concluded that trampolines are not abnormally dangerous nor are their ordinary uses considered ultrahazardous. Although trampoline jumping carries risks, those risks are apparent, and similar conclusions have been reached in other jurisdictions. 

The court emphasizes that the determination of a duty to warn is based on an objective standard, focusing on what an ordinary person would recognize. It concludes that a reasonable 14-year-old would understand the dangers of trampoline use, negating the need for warnings from either the Nairns or Jumpking, and finds the existing warnings from Jumpking to be adequate.

Evidence from industry standards, trade groups, or regulatory agencies can be pertinent in assessing whether a product is unreasonably dangerous in product liability cases, as established in Ruffiner v. Material Service Corp. In this matter, the ASTM Standard F381-84 was identified as applicable to round trampolines, and it was determined that Jumpking’s warnings adhered to this standard. The court concluded that the dangers associated with trampoline use were open and obvious, negating any duty to warn a teenage user. Consequently, the court refrained from addressing the Nairns' potential liability under the Recreational Use Act or the necessity of establishing a causal relationship between the injuries and the alleged inadequacy of the warnings, since the Nairns had no obligation to warn Christa, and the warnings provided were deemed sufficient. Additionally, the court dismissed a related appeal as moot. The summary judgment in favor of defendants Jerry and Betty Nairn and Jumpking was affirmed.