Background
The plaintiff was nine when she fractured her right tibia and fibula while using trampolines at the defendant’s indoor recreation park in Cork on 2 November 2018. The injury required surgery, followed by a period using a wheelchair and crutches, and left noticeable scarring below her knee.
Her pleaded case was that she had trapped her leg at the trampoline perimeter, including an area where springs were attached, after being permitted to jump from trampoline to trampoline. At trial, however, the trampoline equipment was accepted to be high quality and compliant with relevant UK standards. The dispute concerned the alleged accident mechanism and whether supervision or warnings were inadequate.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell dismissed the action. CCTV footage showed that the plaintiff’s feet landed before the yellow border of the trampoline and did not contact, or pass under, the padded perimeter. The court therefore found that she had not trapped her foot in the padded area or contacted the springs as alleged.
The court accepted that the plaintiff had given honest evidence, but held that her recollection of a traumatic event nearly eight years earlier was mistaken. Because the pleaded mechanism of injury was not proved, the evidence could not establish that the defendant’s alleged negligence or breach of duty caused the injury.
The court also held that a distinct contention—that allowing children to land near the trampoline edge was inherently unsafe—had not been clearly pleaded. There was, in any event, no evidence that such use was unsafe in itself or that increased mat stiffness at the edge caused the injury rather than an unlucky landing.
Key Takeaways
- A personal-injury claim may fail where objective footage disproves the pleaded mechanism of injury.
- An honest but inaccurate recollection cannot substitute for proof of causation.
- Irish personal-injury pleadings must clearly identify the alleged act or omission relied upon at trial.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical importance of CCTV evidence in accident litigation and the distinction between a claimant’s credibility and the reliability of their recollection. A serious injury alone does not establish liability.
It also reinforces that defendants are entitled to know the precise case they must meet. New theories of negligence, particularly those concerning supervision, warnings, or operational practices, cannot be advanced at trial without adequate pleading and supporting evidence.