« Law - "A Deluge of Law Schools" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 8 NFP) »
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court rules in trampoline case
In Beth Kopczynski v. David Barger, an 8-page, 5-0 opinion, in a case argued Dec. 6, 2007, Justice Boehm writes:
This case presents two issues of first impression. We hold that under some circumstances a minor’s invitation to enter the premises may bind the landowner for purposes of premises liability, and that a trampoline may constitute an attractive nuisance. In this case both issues turn on facts not appropriately resolved on summary judgment. * * *For the COA opinion, see ILB entry here, 2nd case.[W]e agree with Judge Crone that “the reasonableness of twelve-year-old Alisha’s belief that she had permission to jump on the Barger’s trampoline by virtue of six-year-old Bryan’s invitation . . . presents a genuine issue of material fact that precludes a determination of her status as a matter of law.” Kopczynski, 870 N.E.2d at 11 (Crone, J., dissenting). Summary judgment as to Count I must be reversed. * * *
The Court of Appeals held that the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because in general the dangers of jumping on a trampoline should be as obvious to children as “the dangers of falling from heights.” The Court of Appeals also found that the plaintiffs failed to designate evidence establishing the latent danger of jumping on a trampoline. * * *
In this case the designated evidence conflicts regarding whether Alisha could have appreciated the dangers of jumping on a trampoline, particularly with multiple jumpers. * * * Accordingly, the Bargers have not established a lack of disputed material facts with regard to the open and obvious nature to Alisha of the dangers of trampolines. * * *
The trial court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions