 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Neilson v. Corporation of the Presidin Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints9/30/2002
Todd Neilson was injured while attempting a double somersault on a trampoline, and as a result he is a quadriplegic. He sued the owners of the trampoline and the property where the accident occurred, James and Karen Nelson ('the Nelsons'); the sponsor of the event, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its local branch ('the Church'); the trampoline manufacturer, Roadmaster Corporation ('Roadmaster'); and the distributor of the trampoline, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Company ('Costco'). The trial court entered summary judgments in favor of each defendant and denied Neilson's motion for reconsideration. Notwithstanding the severe and tragic consequences of the accident, we must affirm the summary judgments entered in the defendants' favor. No genuine issue of material fact exists and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, even if the trial court erred by denying Neilson's motion for reconsideration, the summary judgments were proper.
FACTS
The trampoline accident in which Neilson sustained his injury occurred on June 21, 1996 during a social function of the Bear Creek Branch of the Church held at the Nelsons' home. The Nelsons are members of the Church. Approximately 30 adults attended the function. Neilson, who was not a member of the Bear Creek Branch, attended with a friend.
In December of either 1994 or 1995, the Nelsons purchased at Costco a circular Roadmaster trampoline, 14 feet in diameter. When the trampoline was purchased, six bright yellow warning labels were affixed to it: four labels on the frame, one label on the padding covering the springs, and one label on the mat. The trampoline was in the Nelsons' back yard and had never been covered or stored out of the weather. Within a few months after the Nelsons purchased the trampoline, one of the springs stretched out somewhat, but all the other springs were in good condition. Mr. Nelson testified that he inspected the trampoline each time before he used it and most times before his children used it. At some point prior to the day of the accident, the Nelsons removed and discarded the padding that covered the trampoline's springs. Also at some point prior to the day of the accident, a one-inch tear or hole developed in the mat.
Neilson was 26 years old at the time of the accident and had a college education. He had done gymnastics before and first used a trampoline when he was 11 or 12 years old. Prior to the day of the accident, he had used trampolines more than 100 times. His mother, with whom he lived, had purchased a trampoline similar in size and style to the Nelsons' about a year before the accident, and Neilson used it three or four times a week during the summer of 1995, or about 42 to 56 times. Although Neilson did not have formal training in trampoline safety or technique, he testified he was aware of the risks associated with the use of a trampoline. He was also aware of the dangers of doing tricks on the trampoline, such as the danger of landing on the springs or the pads.
Neilson testified that on the day of the accident, nothing appeared wrong with the trampoline, the set-up of the trampoline, or the place where it was located. He noticed the pads around the springs were missing. The trampoline did not contain the label on the spring padding because the Nelsons had removed the padding prior to the date of the accident. The record is unclear about whether there were five or four warning labels on the trampoline on the day of the accident. Under the applicable standard of review, we assume there were four. The record is clear, however, that there was one warning label clearly di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|