Perkins v. Air U Shreveport, LLC

Citation: 249 So. 3d 187Docket: No. 52,093–CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 23, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kurt and Tabitha Perkins appeal a judgment from the First Judicial District Court in Louisiana favoring Air U Shreveport, LLC and others, following a partial summary judgment that dismissed some of their claims. The incident occurred on July 19, 2014, at Air U, an indoor trampoline park, where Kurt, then 24 and recently discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps, was injured while jumping. He reported uncertainty about the cause of his injury but mentioned landing on both feet before his left knee gave out, resulting in a fall. Both Kurt and Tabitha testified they observed no defects in the trampoline prior to the accident. An Air U employee indicated that only a manager could call for an ambulance. Air U's owner, James Murphy, noted that the park had no liability insurance at the time and described their safety protocols, including the presence of a rules video and posted rules, as well as a waiver signed by Kurt prior to jumping. Dr. Gerald S. George, a biomechanical expert, stated in his affidavit that using trampolines to propel oneself poses an unreasonably dangerous risk of serious injury, consistent with Kurt’s injuries. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

On April 17, 2017, Air U filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial judge, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding defects in Air U’s trampoline park. The plaintiffs, the Perkinses, contended that the park was inherently dangerous due to design defects, notably non-compliance with ASTM standards and the angled wall trampolines. Air U's attorney argued these points were irrelevant since the incident involved a straightforward vertical jump. The Perkinses appealed, claiming the trial court erred by not recognizing a genuine issue of material fact regarding the trampolines’ design and safety, citing La. C.C. arts. 2317 and 2317.1 as foundational to their claim. The legal standard for summary judgment requires the moving party to demonstrate the absence of material factual disputes, while the opposing party must provide sufficient evidence to establish such disputes. If the moving party meets its burden, the failure of the nonmoving party to present material factual support necessitates granting the motion. Appellate courts review these judgments de novo, applying the same standards as the trial court.

An owner or custodian is liable for damage caused by a thing only if it can be shown that they knew or should have known about the defect, and that the damage could have been avoided with reasonable care, which they failed to exercise. To successfully claim damages for a defective item, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) the item was under the defendant's custody; 2) it had a defect posing an unreasonable risk of harm; 3) that defect caused the damage; and 4) the defendant knew or should have known about the defect. The custody of an item is determined by whether the person has the right to control it and benefits from it. In this case, Air U owned and operated the trampolines, establishing custody.

A defect is defined as a condition that creates an unreasonable risk of harm, requiring a nuanced evaluation of the defect's risk versus its social utility and repair feasibility. Factors influencing this assessment include the visibility of danger to potential victims and the accident history associated with the defect. The determination of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk involves complex factual findings unique to each case. The Perkinses did not identify a specific defect but argued that the trampoline park posed an overall unreasonable risk. The trial judge acknowledged that evaluating the park's overall risk involves weighing its societal value against potential harm. With approximately 90,000 patrons in nine months, the park's high utility for diverse age groups was noted, indicating its significant social value.

Mr. Murphy reported that Air U had 88 documented injuries in its first nine months of operation, with few requiring ambulance transport, and noted that Air U's injury rate is below the national average for trampoline parks. The national average injury rate is between 0.3% and 0.35%, while Air U experiences significantly fewer incidents, indicating that its societal value surpasses the risk of harm. The trial court determined that the Perkinses failed to demonstrate a defect at Air U, which is necessary for their claim under Louisiana law (2317.1). Therefore, the court did not address the remaining elements of the claim. 

In their second assignment of error, the Perkinses contended that the trial court incorrectly rejected the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows for negligence to be inferred from circumstantial evidence when certain criteria are met. These criteria include: (1) the injury typically does not occur without negligence, (2) evidence must eliminate other probable causes, and (3) the defendant’s negligence must be linked to a duty owed to the plaintiff. The court concluded that trampoline injuries do not ordinarily suggest negligence, particularly in cases like Kurt's, where a knee injury resulted from jumping. Consequently, the doctrine was deemed inapplicable.

The trial court's decision to grant Air U's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, but a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether employees adequately informed Kurt of injury risks and provided timely medical assistance. The costs of the appeal were assigned to the Appellants. The summary judgment was characterized as partial, as certain factual disputes persisted. Additionally, it was noted that the identities of Air U's insurance company and employees were unknown at the time of filing.