O'Leary [A Minor Suing By Her Father and Next Friend O'Leary] v Air-Tastic Cork Ltd (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This personal-injuries action arose from an incident on 2 November 2018, when the Plaintiff, then aged nine, was injured while using trampolines at the Defendant’s indoor recreational facility in The City. [1]

The Plaintiff sustained displaced fractures to the right tibia and fibula, requiring surgery, wheelchair use, crutches, and resulting scarring. [2][3]

The proceedings were commenced by personal injuries summons dated 30 March 2021. The Defendant’s Defence, delivered on 11 January 2022, denied liability and put the Plaintiff to proof. [4][5]

The court heard evidence from the Plaintiff, a representative of the Defendant, and engineering experts for both sides. The court also considered photographic evidence and CCTV footage because the facility had been refurbished after the incident. [6][7]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s injury occurred through her foot becoming trapped beneath the padded edge of a trampoline, as pleaded. [4][8]
2. Whether the evidence established negligence or breach of duty by the Defendant causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. [9]
3. Whether criticisms concerning supervision, warnings, or permitting children to land near the trampoline edge could support the pleaded claim. [10][11][12]

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• The Plaintiff alleged that she was permitted to jump between trampolines, that her leg contacted an area near the springs, and that she fell and was injured. [4][8]
• The Plaintiff’s case focused on inadequate supervision and allowing an unsafe form of trampolining, rather than on the physical quality or maintenance of the trampolines. [10]
• At trial, criticisms were also made concerning supervision or warnings and the safety of landing close to the yellow border of a trampoline. [11][12]

Defendant’s Position

• The Defendant denied liability and put the Plaintiff to proof of her claims. [5]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that the trampolines were of high quality and maintained in compliance with the relevant UK standards. The central issue was therefore supervision and the alleged mechanism of injury. [10]

The CCTV footage and engineering evidence showed that the trampoline springs were concealed beneath padding and that the Plaintiff’s feet landed before the yellow border. The footage did not show her foot contacting or slipping beneath the padding. [16][17]

The court consequently found as fact that the Plaintiff did not trap her foot, contact the padded area, or land on or beyond the yellow border. [18]

The court accepted that the Plaintiff gave her evidence honestly, but concluded that her recollection of the traumatic incident was genuine yet incorrect and contradicted by the CCTV evidence. [19]

The court held that the rejected account was also the mechanism pleaded in the proceedings. Under the principles concerning precise pleadings and adjudication of the pleaded case, the Plaintiff could not rely on a materially different case at trial. [20][13][14][11]

Although the trampoline became stiffer towards its edge, there was no evidence that allowing children to use the trampolines in that manner was unsafe in itself or that the stiffness caused the injury rather than an unlucky landing. [21][12]

Holding and Implications

The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the relief sought was refused. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the pleaded accident mechanism or causation by negligence or breach of duty. [9][22]

The parties were directed to correspond regarding costs within four weeks, with any dispute to be dealt with at a further hearing. [23]

The opinion discusses no broader implications; its direct effect was the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim and the consequential costs process. No new precedent was identified as being established by the decision. [22][23]