Justices overturn judgment in trampoline case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In a case of first impression involving a trampoline, premises liability, and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, the Indiana Supreme Court today overturned summary judgment that originally had been in favor of the trampoline owners, citing material issues of facts in the case.

The high court granted transfer in Beth Palmer Kopczynski, individually and as next friend and parent of Alisha Palmer, and Alisha Palmer v. David Bryan Barger and Peggy Lucas Barger, No. 88S05-0710-CV-423, to determine whether the Bargers were responsible for an injury Alisha Palmer suffered while using their trampoline without adult supervision.

Alisha, who was home alone with her brothers, was asked if she wanted to jump on the Bargers' trampoline by the Bargers' 6-year-old son, Bryan, who was also unsupervised at the time. Alisha, who had never been on a trampoline, hurt her knee while jumping on it with several other children. Alisha and her mother, Beth Kopczynski, filed a complaint against the Bargers alleging premises liability and liability for an attractive nuisance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bargers, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The COA held Alisha was a trespasser and there was no evidence of willful or wanton conduct of the Bargers. The appellate court also held the plaintiffs failed to establish that the trampoline was dangerous or attractive to children or that the Bargers knew children would trespass and be injured.

On both counts, the Supreme Court found material issues of fact and reversed the summary judgment in favor of the Bargers. Whether Alisha had reason to know Bryan didn't have actual authority to invite her onto the property and to use the trampoline is a factual question, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

Comparing the trampoline to an unenclosed junkyard, the justices ruled the trampoline may be considered an attractive nuisance, but that is also a question of material fact to be determined by the trial court. The Bargers argued Alisha, who was 12 at the time of the incident, was old enough to understand the dangers of using a trampoline; they had no reason to suspect she would trespass; and that trampolines pose no particular attraction to children.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether Alisha understood the dangers of using a trampoline, especially when there were other jumpers on it at the same time. The Bargers admitted they had chased off other children using the trampoline before and hadn't 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," Justice Boehm wrote.

The high court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.