Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Local trampoline lawsuit could be headed to Ohio Supreme Court
Lykins suffered a broken neck and crushed spinal cord

GARY HUFFENBERGER
Staff Writer

Wednesday, May 09, 2007


In a lawsuit filed by a Clinton County woman who was severely injured on a trampoline at her cousins' home, a local judgment favorable to the defendants was reversed by a court of appeals.

The 12th District Court of Appeals reversed the local decision and sent the case back to the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas. However, the defendants - trampoline suppliers and the homeowners - now may appeal the ruling by the appellate court in hopes the Ohio Supreme Court will review the matter.

On June 30, 2000, Connie Lykins attended an annual Independence Day party at the home of her cousins, Michael and Mary Thompson of Clinton County. The Thompsons owned a large circular trampoline which they allowed their guests, including Lykins, to use during the parties, according to the judgment written by the 12th District Court of Appeals Presiding Judge James E. Walsh.

On the date of the accident, Lykins arrived at the Thompsons' home about 3 p.m. She drank at least one alcoholic beverage during the party, according to the judgment entry. About 10 p.m., Lykins consumed at least one "test tube" sample of an alcoholic beverage.

At about 11 p.m., she decided to use the trampoline as she had at previous parties there. She climbed upon the trampoline with four other guests. Lykins and three other participants stood on the perimeter, waiting for a turn to jump in the middle, while one person was jumping in the middle.

At some point, as Lykins' brother proceeded to jump in the middle of the trampoline, Lykins lost her balance and fell on her back, according to Judge Walsh's written judgment.

Lykins suffered a broken neck and crushed spinal cord as a result and now is quadriplegic.

In February 2002, Lykins filed a personal injury lawsuit, captioned Connie Lykins v. Fun Spot Trampolines, et al.

The suit against the trampoline suppliers and the Thompsons claims they were responsible for Lykins' injuries on two specific grounds.

First, the defendants are responsible for failing to warn Lykins of a particular hazard that arises when there is excess weight on a trampoline at a given time, changing the trampoline surface from flexible to inflexible.

Second, they are responsible for failing to warn her that when multiple people bounce on a trampoline at a given time, it creates a particular risk of a "double bounce" which could propel her out of control.

Lykins testified she used the trampoline on prior occasions, knew the surface was unstable to walk upon, knew she could fall and knew more than one person on the trampoline put her off balance, according to Walsh's judgment entry.

However, Lykins also testified "she did not know the presence of more than 225 pounds on a trampoline at a given time created the particular risk of the trampoline surface transforming from a flexible, forgiving surface into a hard, inflexible surface. Rather, Lykins thought if she fell on the trampoline, she would be falling on a flexible, forgiving surface," according to the judgment entry.

She also testified she did not know "multiple people bouncing on the trampoline at a given time created the particular risk of a 'double bounce' which could project her out of control even though she was only standing on the perimeter of the trampoline 'lightly' bouncing," according to Walsh's entry.

Lykins testified she was never warned of those conditions and never saw a warning on the apparatus itself.

"Significantly, Lykins [her attorneys] presented expert evidence indicating these particular hazards are not commonly known to most people who use trampolines. In fact, other participants who used the trampoline on the evening in question testified they were unaware these conditions existed," according to the judgment from the court of appeals.

Clinton County Common Pleas Court Judge John W. "Tim" Rudduck earlier had ruled the case should not advance to a jury. He said this week he based his decision on the legal doctrine of "open and obvious."

According to the open-and-obvious doctrine, if an individual should be able to see they could get hurt during an activity, then the open-and-obvious aspect of the activity provides a defense for the homeowner. The rationale underlying the doctrine is the open-and-obvious nature of a hazard itself serves as a warning.

Rudduck further said he based his decision on an Illinois Supreme Court opinion, adding there have not been a lot of trampoline injury liability cases heard in Ohio.

In the appeal, attorneys for Lykins argued Rudduck erred because the dangers presented by excess weight and from multiple people on a trampoline are not commonly known to most people who use trampolines.

Walsh included in his opinion, "Open-and-obvious hazards are those hazards that are not concealed and are discoverable by ordinary inspection."

Writing for a unanimous three-judge court of appeals panel, Walsh wrote the panel "cannot find as a matter of law the particular hazards at issue here were open and obvious."