A girl who suffered a serious leg injury while trampolining has lost her High Court action for damages.
Alex O’Leary was aged nine when she suffered the injury at an indoor trampolining park in Cork operated by Air-Tastic Cork Limited.
She was diagnosed with a fracture of her right leg, requiring surgery, said Judge Barry O’Donnell. As well as the obvious pain of such an injury, she was immobile for a time, requiring a wheelchair and then crutches.
While she made a good recovery, she still has noticeable, although faded, scarring just below her right knee, he said.
Through her father, Colin, Alex, now aged 17, sued Air-Tastic Cork over the incident on November 2nd, 2018.
In his judgment published on Friday, the judge found the plaintiff had failed to establish negligence or breach of duty against the defendant and dismissed the claim.
The focus of the claim was not on the physical state of the facility, which was accepted to be of a high standard, he said.
Instead, the core claim was that there was inadequate supervision, that the girl was permitted to engage in an unsafe form of trampolining, and the defendant did not take adequate care for her safety.
On the face of the evidence, including CCTV and engineering evidence, the judge concluded the incident did not occur as pleaded and the plaintiff’s recollection of it was “honest but flawed”.
The pleaded claim was that the girl was caused, occasioned or permitted to trap her leg at the periphery of the trampoline, he said.
It was pleaded, while caused or permitted to jump from trampoline to trampoline, her leg was caused or permitted to come into contact with an area of the trampoline with springs attached with the consequence she was caused, occasioned or permitted to fall.
It was clear from the evidence that the padded walkways between the trampolines completely covered the spring mechanisms that maintained tension in the trampolines, and there were no exposed springs, the judge said.
CCTV showed the plaintiff and other young people completing circuits of the trampolines, he said.
Her evidence was clear the cause of the accident was that her right foot caught the padding at the border between the trampolines and this led to the leg break. She confirmed she was wearing socks, supplied by the defendant, with a non-slip material on the sole.
The difficulty with her case was that the CCTV footage – which he noted could not produce fully precise images of the incident – did not show her foot making contact with the padded area or slipping under it, he said.
On foot of the evidence, the judge found as a fact she did not trap her foot or otherwise make contact with the padded area, nor did she land on or past the yellow border of the trampoline.
While saying he must reject her account, the judge stressed he wanted to make clear he did not consider her account to be tainted by any hint of dishonesty. She suffered a very serious and painful injury at a young age, and the court’s finding was that her recollection, while genuine, was incorrect and contradicted by the CCTV evidence.
There was no evidence it was unsafe per se to allow young people to use the trampoline as outlined, or that the tension was the reason for her injury as opposed to any other cause, such as an unlucky landing, he added.
Costs orders will be made later.