When safety falls short: trampoline park liability in focus

In the case of Mrs Natalee Smith v Greenwich Leisure Limited (in the High Court of Justice, Kings Bench Division, Truro District Registry), His Honour Judge Mitchell considered the safety of a large foam pit at the Defendant’s premises in Newquay, Cornwall. This followed a significant back injury to the Claimant after she had jumped into that said foam pit. 

The regulatory frame work

The Claimant relied upon the provisions contained within the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1998. The Claimant was also a lawful visitor within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

Significant consideration was also given to document PAS 5000:2017 (hereafter ‘PAS’). It was agreed that this was the industry standard for the construction and operation of fixed indoor trampoline parks at the time of the accident in 2019. This has since been replaced by an international standard, namely ISO23659.

The facts of this case

The Claimant sustained an accident on her first day at work on 08/07/2019. The accident occurred at the Better Newquay Trampoline and Play Park owned and operated by the Defendant. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant, and this was her first day of training. During her training, the Claimant and her colleagues were invited to try out the new equipment. This included a large foam pit. The Claimant jumped from a 2-metre platform into the large foam pit and sustained injury to her back. 

There was no criticism by the Defendant as to the manner in which the Claimant jumped from the platform or how she entered the foam pit. There was also no dispute that on the day of the accident she sustained some injury. There was however a material dispute as to the mechanism of such injury and the extent of the injuries sustained. 

The Claimant maintained throughout the proceedings that on jumping into the foam pit she moved through the foam cubes within the pit, landed on the trampoline bed underneath the foam cubes, traveling further downwards and hitting something hard. She described this as like “hitting concrete”. She was in immediate pain which progressively worsened requiring her to be transferred from her home to hospital later than evening by ambulance. 

Mrs Smith instructed Express Solicitors to bring a claim for personal injury and financial losses against the Defendant. Liability was denied pre-litigation and Part 7 proceedings were commenced in 2022. On attending a site inspection at the Defendant’s premises in November 2023, it was identified that several layers of foam sheeting had been installed underneath the trampoline bed. These layers of foam were, on the Claimant’s evidence, hard and provided very little, if any, attenuation. They only served to reduce the gap between the trampoline bed and a hard surface below (the foam). 

The Claimant’s pleadings were amended to reflect these new findings. This now included allegations that the Defendant had provided insufficient space between the trampoline bed and floor, thereby increasing the risk of a user “bottoming out” my making contact with a hard surface and/or failed to provide proper and adequate attenuating foam between the trampoline bed and the floor. 

Liability was denied by the Defendant throughout the claim. It denied that the Claimant could have made direct contact with a hard surface such as to cause trauma to her back. The Defendant had obtained a certificate issued by an external company involved in the creation of PAS guidance, which confirmed that the trampoline park and its equipment were compliant with PAS. The Defendant also pleaded that the attenuating foam was supplied by the manufacturers when the trampoline pit was installed, and there was nothing improper or inadequate with the attenuating foam which was in place. 

The ruling of the Court

The Trial of this matter took place in the High Court at Truro over a period of 4 days. The Judge heard evidence from multiple lay witnesses and experts in occupational health and safety and spinal injury. 

In conclusion, His Honour Judge Mitchell found that despite the pit being compliant with PAS, that was not sufficient to negate liability. He found as a matter of fact that the Claimant did hit the foam underneath the trampoline bed, that the foam was hard offering little attenuation and that there was an insufficient air gap between the trampoline bed and the foam underneath. The Defendant also failed to undertake appropriate risk assessments and had not considered the risk that people using the foam might “bottom out”. The foam pit taken as a whole was not safe or suitable for use. 

In finding in favour of the Claimant on the issue of liability, it was Ordered that there be Judgment for the Claimant for damages relating to a soft tissue injury overlying L1-L3 and a bulging disc at L4/L5 causing back pain and sciatica 5-10 years earlier in the absence of the trauma sustained at work on 08/07/2019. 

The impact of this case

There is currently no statutory framework in place relating to the construction and operation of fixed indoor trampoline parks. These parks are increasing in number throughout the country, with increased public use and reported injuries.  

Compliance with PAS or ISO23659 does not mean that equipment is automatically deemed safe to use. In the foreword to the PAS guidance, it is stated clearly that compliance with a PAS cannot confer immunity from legal obligations. ISO23659 acknowledges that adherence to that document will not prevent all injuries. It is notes that injuries can be reduced through construction (design, manufacture and installation) but also through operation (supervision, staff training, maintenance, instructions and continuous risk management). There is a responsibility on the owners of trampoline parks to consider these issues. 

Risk taking is clearly a feature of trampoline park use. That does not however mean that individuals choosing to partake in trampoline park activities should be exposed to an unnecessary risk of injury. The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there. Simply by having a certificate confirming PAS or ISO23659 compliance is not enough. 

Injured individuals should be encouraged to seek legal advice if they sustain injuries at trampoline parks, even if a waiver has been signed. Such waivers may not absolve operators from liability, particularly if equipment has not been properly constructed, regularly maintained, or adequately risk assessed. Legal practitioners should carefully evaluate whether safety standards were adhered to and whether the operator met their duty of care obligations.