Business Law Case Study: Trampoline Injury, Negligence and Liability

This business law case study analyzes a scenario where Mrs. Hooper seeks compensation for her son's injuries sustained from a worn-out trampoline. The case focuses on the principles of negligence, specifically the duty of care owed to a child trespasser. The legal argument centers around wheth...Read More

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
To: Miranda Hooper
From: Legal Associate
Date: 18 March 2019
Conclusion
Mrs Hooper’s would be successful to claim compensation for her son’s medical cost
pertaining to the injury sustained from the Bumper’s worn out trampoline and also for her
loss of income for two weeks. Brady Hooper, a six year old boy was incapable of
understanding the potential risk of playing on a worn out trampoline which was meant for
playing
Rule of law
If a defendant who has the liability to make sure that his property is safe for any
trespassing child and fails to do so, and that affects the trespassing child for his property
involves high risk or danger; then in that case the defendant would be held liable for
negligence. Such trespassing children are bestowed with the right to claim compensation.
The test for establishing liability or duty of care:
First, it needs to be proved that the owner or occupier of the land had knowledge of
the fact that children trespass on such property from time to time. Second, the occupier must
have the knowledge that his land involves certain unreasonable risk which may cause
physical harm to the children and that it may be even fatal. Third, the provision also includes
that the trespassing children cannot be expected to have the knowledge of the probable
danger involved in the trespassed land (Gladstone 1965). Fourth, the burden of the owner or
occupier of the land to remove the danger is lighter and minor in comparison to the risk to
which the trespassing children may get involved. And lastly, the provision states that the
occupier of the land even knowing all the peculiarities fails to secure the risk or remove the
danger of the land which eventually affects the trespassing children (Bergman 1967).

2BUSINESS LAW
Explanation of the Rule
In the case of Bruhn v. L.B. Smith, Inc. No. 3525 Civil 1991 the 14 years old
trespassing child had suffered a physical injury when he trespassed in an abandoned quarry
owned by L.B. Smith Inc (defendant). When the plaintiff instituted a suit against the
defendant with the allegation as to its negligence of safeguarding the quarry from trespassing
children, the court passed a judgment in favour of the defendant, citing the provision of
Section 339 of the Restatement (second) of Tort (1965). The court stated that the plaintiff had
the knowledge of the risk involved with climbing or playing in the quarry. Therefore, the
defendant owed no duty of care towards the plaintiff who was aware of the risk.
In the case of Prokop v. Becker, 345 Pa. 607, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the
defendant for recovering damages for his minor son, struck by a plane in a field where they
visited on a frequent basis. It was also investigated and found out that the boys could see the
plane approaching them for a long time before it could hit them. The court held that it was
not possible for the defendant to anticipate such an accident and therefore, the defendant held
no duty of care, therefore not resulting to negligence.
In the case of Kennedy & Kennedy v Graham 516 So. 2d 572 (1987) a seven year old
girl fell from the roof of her neighbour while playing with other neighbouring children. The
plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant accusing of his failure to ensure his duty of care
towards the children playing at his house. The trial court suggested the application of Section
35-15-1 et seq., of Code 1975. The court held that it did not find sufficient evident that
support the allegation of negligence to provide duty of care of the defendant and thus
dismisses the claim of the plaintiff.
In the case of Cooper v. City of Reading 392 Pa. 452 (1958), the plaintiff filed an
instant trespass action to recover compensation for the accidental death of his two deceased
sons, died by drowning in the city canal. The City of Reading and the Pennsylvania Railroad

3BUSINESS LAW
Co. was held as the defendant who was accused of not maintaining the canal. The court
pointed out the negligence of the City of Reading by stating the fact that it failed to secure the
dried up canal which seemed deceptive to anticipate the potential danger or risk of the place
by a child. The court held that the city administrative authority should have safeguarded or
amended the dangerous or risky condition of the place which would have ensured the safety
of the children.
Application of the Rule on the given Case
In the given case, six years old Brady Hooper wouldn’t have realized the danger
involved in using the Bumper’s trampoline for the following case:
1. Brady Hooper is only six years old and trampolines left unattended are attractive to
children in his age. The expert witness on Bergers has testified that children under
the age of sixteen do not appreciate or understand the dangers of using a trampoline
without adult supervision and with multiple jumpers and that the dangers of
trampolines are not readily apparent to such children.” Brady who is under 16
wouldn’t have been able to recognize the multiple jumpers could cause him bodily
harm.
2. Unlike 16 years old Justin in Bruhn’s case who understood the risk involved in
climbing in the quarry, Brady could not have understood the danger in trampoline
since it is meant for playing.
3. As referenced to the Cooper case, the conduct of young children can be judged by
adult standards. However, the care and caution required by a child is measured by his
capacity to see and appreciate danger, and he is held only to such measure of
discretion as is usual to those of his age and experience. Considering Brady’s age and
his first-time experience with trampoline he would not have known that multiple

4BUSINESS LAW
jumpers would cause the worn out spring that connects the mat to the trampoline
snap and would cause him physical harm.
Conclusion (restatement)
Therefore, Mrs Hooper’s would be successful to claim compensation for her son’s
medical cost pertaining to the injury sustained from the Bumper’s worn out trampoline and
also for her loss of income for two weeks. Brady Hooper, a six year old boy was incapable of
understanding the potential risk of playing on a worn out trampoline which was meant for
playing

5BUSINESS LAW
References
Bergman, Paul. "Torts: New Rules Governing Invitees and Child Trespassers in
California." California Law Review(1967): 366-377.
Bruhn v. L.B. Smith, Inc. No. 3525 Civil 1991
Cooper v. City of Reading 392 Pa. 452 (1958)
Gladstone, Henry A. "The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and Section 339 of the
Restatement of Torts: A Case Study of Opinion-Writing." University of Pennsylvania Law
Review 113, no. 4 (1965): 563-586.
Kennedy & Kennedy v Graham 516 So. 2d 572 (1987)
Prokop v. Becker, 345 Pa. 607
Restatement (second) of Tort (1965)