ILNews

Justices overturn judgment in trampoline case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT