Trust and transparency
Editorial standards, sourcing and review
Everything on this site is written to be checkable. This page explains what counts as a source and the claims we refuse to make.
What sources does this site rely on?
Legal statements are sourced to court opinions, state statutes and state judicial or government resources. Safety and injury statements are sourced to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the ASTM standards for trampoline courts, and peer-reviewed medical literature.
The qualification: Secondary commentary is never used as the sole authority for a legal rule. Where the only available source is secondary, the page says the point is unsettled rather than stating a rule.
Our source hierarchy, strongest first:
- Court opinions from the state whose law is being described — a state supreme court decision on waiver enforceability outranks everything below it.
- State statutes and codified filing deadlines, comparative fault rules and damages limits, cited to the section number.
- State judicial and government resources — court self-help materials, attorney general and consumer agency publications.
- Federal agency material, principally the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for injury surveillance and recalls.
- Consensus safety standards, principally ASTM F2970 for trampoline courts and ASTM F1918 for soft-contained play equipment.
- Peer-reviewed medical research and clinical policy, including American Academy of Pediatrics policy statements.
What will this site not say about a named trampoline park?
We name trampoline park operators only to identify the facility a claim may involve, and we publish nothing about a named operator beyond neutral, sourced facts such as its aliases, attractions and business structure.
The qualification: Naming a park is not an allegation against it. Whether any operator was negligent in a specific incident is a question of fact for that case.
On operator pages we do not publish:
- lawsuit counts or claim volumes
- injury counts attributed to a company
- alleged safety violations or inspection failures
- recalls not documented by the CPSC for that specific product
- characterisations of an operator as negligent or unsafe
- settlement amounts said to involve that operator
- corporate ownership, parent or franchise relationships we cannot verify
Trampoline park names are used only to identify the facility a claim may involve. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any trampoline park operator, and naming a park does not imply wrongdoing.
Does this site publish average settlement figures?
No. We do not publish average or typical trampoline injury settlement amounts, because no honest average exists across different injuries, different states, different waivers and different insurance limits.
The qualification: We do explain the factors that actually drive case value, which is a different and more useful thing than a number.
A dollar range copied from another site tells you nothing about a specific case and everything about that site's willingness to guess. Prior results also do not predict future outcomes. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case.
Full guide: Trampoline injury settlements and case value
How do I report an error on this site?
Use the case review form on any page and describe the error and the page it appears on. Substantive corrections are made and the page's 'last updated' date is changed.
The qualification: We correct facts and legal statements. We do not remove neutral, sourced identification of a trampoline park at an operator's request.
Related
- Resource library
Cited long-form articles.
- Trampoline injury law by state
Where the answers change by jurisdiction.
- Trampoline park waivers
What a signed release does and does not do.
Talk to a trampoline injury lawyer
If something here is wrong, or you want to know how these rules apply to what happened to your family, tell us.