A trampoline facility should have been awarded summary disposition in an injured patron’s negligence suit, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel has held, reversing a ruling from the trial court.
The patron, who was rendered paraplegic after he over-rotated while attempting a flip, brought a slew of claims against the facility. But the appeals court said the injured man failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support of any of his theories of liability.
“[Plaintiff] cannot recover for any failure to comply with the signage requirements of the [Michigan Trampoline Court Safety Act] because he cannot establish a causal connection between the alleged signage violation and his injury and because there is no genuine issue of material fact that he was 50 percent or more responsible for his accident because of his intoxication,” the judges explained.
The unpublished decision is Cavins v. BAT Commercial LLC ( MiLW 08-108034 , 10 pages). Judges Kathleen A. Feeney, Michael J. Kelly and Michelle M. Rick sat on the panel.
Lansing attorney Steven A. Hicks represented the plaintiff and Parisa R. Gold of Johnston, Sztykiel, Hunt, Fraser, Gold & Barron in Troy represented the defendant. Neither could be reached for comment.
Trampoline park
Joshua Ray Cavins and his family visited Michigan Airtime’s indoor trampoline court in April 2018. He authorized his wife to fill out the paperwork, including a release of liability.
Per the opinion, Cavins conceded that he had been drinking “a couple of half-pints of vodka” between leaving work and arriving at Michigan Airtime and then more in the parking lot while his wife filled out the paperwork.
Michigan Airtime used videos and audio recordings repeatedly reminding trampoliners to use caution. Signs posted at the facility have instructions and warnings for trampoliners, as required by the Michigan Trampoline Court Safety Act , or TCSA. A sign above an ATM and paperwork kiosk near the facility’s entrance contained the verbatim text of MCL 691.1735 , which lists the duties of trampoliners.
Other signs warned patrons using the trampolines to maintain control of their speed and course, to refrain from participating while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, to use the trampoline court within their own “limitations, training, and acquired skills,” and to avoid landing on their head or neck.
Cavins denied seeing the sign listing trampoliners’ statutory duties; he said it was opposite the reception desk, where patrons wouldn’t see it unless they turned around.
After jumping for a few minutes, Cavins tried to perform a flip, over-rotated and landed on his head or neck on a nearby trampoline. He suffered a cervical spine injury, leaving him quadriplegic. After the injury, a blood draw indicated Cavins had a blood alcohol content of 0.21.
Cavins brought a slew of claims, including negligence, gross negligence and wanton misconduct, among others.
Michigan Airtime moved for summary disposition, arguing Cavins could not show it violated any provision of the TCSA, and that his claims were barred by the defense of assumption of risk, the liability release his wife had signed on his behalf, and because he was intoxicated and more than 50% at fault.
Cavins filed a motion for summary disposition to challenge the validity of the release.
The Oakland County Circuit Court denied Michigan Airtime’s motion in full, even though it agreed Cavins didn’t establish a question of fact regarding whether the equipment was defective or if any defect contributed to the accident.
Michigan Airtime appealed.
Signage
The trial court said Michigan Airtime didn’t comply with the TCSA, which requires an operator to “[p]ost the duties of trampoliners in conspicuous places ” and the facility only posted the duties in one place.
But the appellate judges agreed with Michigan Airtime that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether this omission caused Cavins’ injuries.
“The evidence demonstrated that Michigan Airtime had one sign that fully listed all of the duties of trampoliners prescribed in MCL 691.1735, but had other signs that conveyed the same information, but without citing the TCSA or quoting its language verbatim,” the panel explained.
Nor could Cavins show that any noncompliance with this requirement was a proximate cause of his injury.
“Cavins’ only evidence of causation is his affidavit, in which he averred that he would not have attempted the flip maneuver if he had seen a sign informing him ‘to use the trampoline court within [his] own training and acquired skills,’” the judges noted. “We are not persuaded that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the absence of a second sign directly quoting and citing the TCSA was the proximate cause of Cavins’ injury.”
Intoxication
Michigan Airtime also claimed they were entitled to summary disposition because of Cavins’ intoxication. They offered evidence that Cavins consumed vodka after leaving work and at the facility’s parking lot, and registered a 0.21 BAC at the hospital.
The appeals court said this established a rebuttable presumption of impairment under MCL 600.2955a(2)(b). Cavins’ argument that his BAC at the time his blood was collected might not reflect his BAC at the time of the accident failed because he failed to offer any expert opinion or other evidence supporting this hypothesis.
The panel said Cavins did not exhibit conduct or decision-making of a person acting reasonably or responsibly. He delegated the task of completing the release paperwork to his wife while he went to the car to drink, he didn’t observe warning signs where he was jumping and tried to perform an advanced aerial trick after only a few minutes of using a trampoline.
“Thus, a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that Cavins rebutted the presumption of impairment,” the judges wrote. “Further, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Cavins was 50% or more at fault for his injuries given that it was Cavins’ decision to attempt a risky maneuver far outside his skill and experience level. Therefore, the trial court erred by denying Michigan Airtime’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of Cavins’ intoxication.”
The panel reversed the lower court’s order denying summary disposition.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0