High Court Dismisses Child's Trampoline Park Injury Claim

The High Court has dismissed a personal injuries claim taken on behalf of a girl who sustained a severe leg fracture while visiting a commercial indoor trampoline arena in Cork. In a reserved judgment delivered at the Four Courts, Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell determined that the operators of the facility could not be held legally liable for the incident, finding that the evidence presented at trial did not substantiate the specific allegations pleaded against the company.

Severe Injury and Surgical Intervention

The action was brought by Alex O'Leary, who was nine years old at the time of the incident, suing through her father and next friend, Colin O'Leary, against Air-Tastic Cork Limited. The court heard that on 2 November 2018, the plaintiff visited the recreational facility alongside family members. During the course of her session on the trampolines, she suffered an acute trauma to her lower right limb, resulting in a displaced angulated fracture of the diaphysis of both the tibia and fibula.

Following the mishap, the young plaintiff underwent emergency medical treatment and orthopaedic surgery involving a closed reduction with percutaneous flexible intramedullary titanium nailing. While medical reports confirmed that she made an admirable recovery, the injury caused considerable physical distress and temporary immobility, requiring her to use a wheelchair before transitioning to crutches. The court observed that the girl was left with a visible though faded surgical scar below her right knee.

The Focus of the Negligence Allegations

Unlike many premises liability disputes, the litigation did not target the mechanical integrity or maintenance of the play apparatus. Both parties accepted that the trampolines were manufactured to a high standard and aligned with recognised UK safety standards, which are widely referenced by the leisure industry in Ireland given the absence of standalone domestic statutory codes. Instead, the claim pivoted on allegations of inadequate staff supervision and an assertion that the child had been permitted to bounce in an inherently unsafe manner.

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, facility operators owe a statutory duty of care to ensure entrants do not suffer injury caused by dangers existing on premises. Before proceeding to a full High Court hearing, such claims are typically subject to assessment by the Injuries Resolution Board, formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB). When formal assessment is declined or an authorisation issues, plaintiffs must satisfy the court that the defendant breached their duty of care and that this breach directly caused the damage suffered.

Honest but Flawed Recollection at Trial

In evaluating the testimony, Mr Justice O'Donnell found that the plaintiff's recollection of how the fall transpired, though delivered honestly, was factually flawed when assessed against the available evidence. The court concluded that the incident did not take place in the manner detailed in the formal personal injury summons. Because the factual narrative underpinning the claim could not be established on the balance of probabilities, the allegations of causal negligence could not succeed.

The judge noted that criticisms raised during the hearing regarding staff supervision, briefing procedures, and floor warnings did not rescue the case as pleaded. During the trial, suggestions were advanced that allowing children to land near the stiffer yellow border perimeter of the trampoline mat increased the risk of injury. However, the judge observed that this proposition was never clearly articulated in the formal pleadings, precluding the defence from preparing technical evidence on that distinct issue. In any event, no expert testimony established that bouncing in proximity to the edge was unsafe per se or that mat tension caused the fracture rather than an unfortunate, inherent recreational misstep.

Strict Adherence to Pleadings in Personal Injury Actions

The decision reinforces the long-established principle within Irish civil procedure that litigants are bound by their pleadings. The Rules of the Superior Courts require a plaintiff to set out with reasonable precision the acts or omissions that allegedly constitute negligence. Where a claimant's version of events deviates materially from the pleaded summons, courts will rarely permit liability to be attached on speculative alternative grounds.

Mr Justice O'Donnell expressed sympathy for the plaintiff given the serious nature of the fracture and the disruption it caused to her childhood. However, he reaffirmed that the occurrence of an injury in a recreational sports environment does not, of itself, create an automatic inference of tortious liability. In the absence of proven negligence causing the harm, the High Court held that the claim must be refused, entering judgment in favour of the operating company.