Arizona Trampoline Accident Lawyer

Arizona's Legal Framework for Trampoline Injuries

Three legal theories come up most often after a trampoline accident in Arizona, and more than one can apply to the same fall.

The first is premises liability: the responsibility of whoever owns or controls a property for injuries caused by its condition or by how it is run. The law asks four things. Did the party owe the injured person a duty of care? Did it breach that duty? Did the breach cause the injury? Did the injury cause damages? An injury alone does not answer any of these questions.

The second is product liability, which concerns a trampoline, mat, spring, net or pad alleged to be defective. Here the law asks whether there was a defect and whether the defect caused the injury. An accident does not prove a defect.

The third is negligent supervision. This is the claim that someone responsible for watching over jumpers failed to use reasonable care in doing so. It most often arises at trampoline parks, birthday parties and organized programs.

Two Arizona statutes shape how all three theories work. Under section 12-2505 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are "in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury." If the jury applies either defense, "the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death." That rule has one stated exception: there is no comparative negligence for a claimant who "intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death." The statute also counts fault "imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law."

The second statute is the recreational-use rule in section 33-1551 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Under it, an owner, easement holder, lessee, tenant, manager or occupant of premises is not liable to a recreational user or educational user unless that party "was guilty of wilful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct that was a direct cause of the injury." The same section says it "does not create a duty of care or basis of liability."

Which of these rules governs a given injury depends on the facts: where it happened, who controlled the equipment and what kind of visitor the injured person was.

Where Arizona Trampoline Injuries Happen and Who May Be Responsible

The setting of the accident usually decides which theory and which defendant come into view.

At a commercial trampoline park, the business running it is the party most often at issue. The law asks what a business of that type owes its paying guests in how it runs the courts, foam pits and dodgeball areas. That includes how it staffs and supervises them, how it maintains the equipment and how it enforces its rules. Our pages on trampoline park injury claims and foam pit injuries explain those theories in more depth.

A backyard trampoline raises a different question. The issue there is what duty a homeowner owes to the person who was hurt, such as a guest, a neighbor's child or a family member. A school or a recreational facility can raise the same premises question.

Section 33-1551 can matter in some of these settings. Its protection reaches owners and occupants of premises as to "recreational" or "educational" users. Whether an injured person counts as one of those users turns on the statute's definitions and the facts of the visit. Subsection B also provides that a landowner "is not liable for damages in any civil action for unknown conditions on the land." Under subsection C, the section also applies to a governmental entity, organization or person that provides money for, maintains or improves land made available to the public for recreational or educational purposes.

Manufacturers, importers and sellers are a third category. They may be at issue when a frame, spring, mat, enclosure or pad is alleged to be defective.

Public entities carry their own rule. Under section 12-821.01 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, anyone with a claim against a public entity, public school or public employee must file a claim within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. It is filed with the person or persons authorized to accept service as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure. The next section covers that deadline in detail.

Sorting out who was present, who owned what and who was supervising is often the first real question in any trampoline accident claim in Arizona.

Filing Deadlines and the Rules That Can Shorten Them

The deadline question is often the one that brings people here. In Arizona, several statutes answer it, depending on who was hurt and who may be responsible.

A statute of limitations is a law that sets how long a person has to file a lawsuit. Section 12-542 of the Arizona Revised Statutes provides that, "except as provided in section 12-551," an action "for injuries done to the person of another" shall be commenced "within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward." When death ensues from the injuries, the action "shall be considered as accruing at the death of the party injured."

A child's claim is treated differently. Under section 12-502 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, if a person entitled to bring an action is under eighteen, or of unsound mind, when the cause of action accrues, "the period of such disability shall not be deemed a portion of the period limited for commencement of the action." The person then has "the same time after removal of the disability which is allowed to others." The statute states one exception: it applies to actions "other than those set forth in article 2 of this chapter."

Claims against a public entity, public school or public employee follow section 12-821.01, which is separate from and shorter than the two-year period. The claim must be filed within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. It must contain facts sufficient to explain the basis for liability, along with "a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount." A claim not filed in time "is barred and no action may be maintained thereon." For this section, a cause of action accrues when the damaged party realizes they have been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause. A minor or an incompetent person may file within one hundred eighty days after the disability ceases. A claim is deemed denied sixty days after filing unless the claimant is told of a denial in writing sooner.

Defective-product claims carry the twelve-year rule in section 12-551, discussed below.

Which of these periods applies, and when it began, depends on the facts. That is often the most useful thing to work out in a conversation with an attorney.

What Drives a Trampoline Injury Claim: Fault, Evidence, and What the Facts Have to Show

A claim built on negligence or premises liability rests on the four elements described above: duty, breach, causation and damages. Each one has to be shown with facts. Section 12-2505 then leaves the question of the injured person's own share of fault to the jury, and any damages are reduced in proportion to that share. In a trampoline case, arguments about fault often center on double-bouncing, a flip or a rule that was or was not posted. Who carried what share is a factual question, not one the injury itself answers.

Evidence is how those facts get shown. If you were hurt, the records that usually matter include the facility's incident report and the medical records from the emergency room onward. Photographs and video often matter too, including any surveillance footage. Families also often keep the trampoline or the damaged part itself. Maintenance and inspection logs, the names of witnesses and staff, and receipts or booking confirmations are commonly gathered as well. For a head injury, the treatment records that describe it often become central; our page on trampoline head injuries explains why.

Many parks ask guests, or a parent, to sign a waiver or release before jumping. A release is a document in which a person agrees to give up certain claims. Many also include an arbitration clause. Whether such a document affects a claim in Arizona depends on Arizona's current law, the exact wording of the document and who signed it. The same is true of a parent signing for a child. Our page on trampoline park waiver claims explains how these documents are typically structured. A copy of what was signed, with its date, is usually part of the record either way.

Whether any of the elements can be shown depends on the facts of the specific incident. If you are weighing what the reports, footage and signed forms mean in your situation, you may want to consider requesting a case evaluation to talk them through.

Product Liability and the Twelve-Year Rule Under Arizona Law

When the trampoline itself is in question, Arizona adds a time limit that runs from the product's sale rather than from the injury. Under section 12-551 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, a product liability action "shall be commenced and prosecuted within the period prescribed in section 12-542." There is a further limit. No product liability action may be brought "if the cause of action accrues more than twelve years after the product was first sold for use or consumption." That limit has stated exceptions: it does not apply when the cause of action "is based upon the negligence of the manufacturer or seller or a breach of an express warranty provided by the manufacturer or seller."

A product claim asks whether the trampoline or a component had a defect and whether that defect caused the injury. The defect might be in the design, in how the item was made or in its warnings. A torn mat, a failed spring or a collapsed enclosure is a fact to be explained, not proof of a defect.

For a backyard trampoline bought years ago, or park equipment of unknown age, the product's history can matter a great deal. That history includes when it was first sold, by whom, and whether parts were replaced. A product theory may run alongside a premises theory against the owner or operator. Whether a product claim exists depends on the facts and on the product's history.

When a Trampoline Accident Results in a Death: Arizona's Wrongful-Death Law

A family facing a trampoline death carries grief and legal questions at the same moment, and Arizona's statutes speak directly to who may act. A wrongful death claim is a claim brought after a death caused by someone else's wrongful conduct. Under section 12-611 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, when a death is caused by "wrongful act, neglect or default" that would have entitled the injured person to sue had they lived, the party who would have been liable "shall be liable to an action for damages."

Section 12-612 of the Arizona Revised Statutes says who brings that action. It is brought by the surviving husband or wife, child, parent or guardian, or personal representative of the deceased person. It is brought on behalf of the surviving husband or wife, children or parents, or, if none of these survive, on behalf of the decedent's estate. Either parent may maintain the action for the death of a child. The amount recovered is distributed to those parties "in proportion to their damages." If the recovery is on behalf of the estate, it is an asset of the estate. The statute disqualifies a party convicted of certain listed offenses involving the death. For this purpose, "personal representative" includes a person granted letters testamentary or of administration under the laws of Arizona or any other state.

Under section 12-542, the two-year period for an action when death ensues is "considered as accruing at the death of the party injured." The same fault and causation questions apply, including the comparative-fault rule in section 12-2505, which refers expressly to "injury or death." What damages the law may allow depends on the facts and on each survivor's losses. For a family, a case evaluation is a place to raise what Arizona law allows and what the facts may support.