On the date of the accident, Lykins arrived at the Thompsons’ home about 3 p.m. She drank at least one alcoholic beverage during the party, according to the judgment entry. About 10 p.m., Lykins consumed at least one “test tube” sample of an alcoholic beverage.

At about 11 p.m., she decided to use the trampoline as she had at previous parties there. She climbed upon the trampoline with four other guests. Lykins and three other participants stood on the perimeter, waiting for a turn to jump in the middle, while one person was jumping in the middle.

At some point, as Lykins’ brother proceeded to jump in the middle of the trampoline, Lykins lost her balance and fell on her back, according to Judge Walsh’s written judgment.

Lykins suffered a broken neck and crushed spinal cord as a result and now is quadriplegic.

In February 2002, Lykins filed a personal injury lawsuit, captioned Connie Lykins v. Fun Spot Trampolines, et al.

The suit against the trampoline suppliers and the Thompsons claims they were responsible for Lykins’ injuries on two specific grounds.

First, the defendants are responsible for failing to warn Lykins of a particular hazard that arises when there is excess weight on a trampoline at a given time, changing the trampoline surface from flexible to inflexible.

Second, they are responsible for failing to warn her that when multiple people bounce on a trampoline at a given time, it creates a particular risk of a “double bounce” which could propel her out of control.

Lykins testified she used the trampoline on prior occasions, knew the surface was unstable to walk upon, knew she could fall and knew more than one person on the trampoline put her off balance, according to Walsh’s judgment entry.

However, Lykins also testified “she did not know the presence of more than 225 pounds on a trampoline at a given time created the particular risk of the trampoline surface transforming from a flexible, forgiving surface into a hard, inflexible surface. Rather, Lykins thought if she fell on the trampoline, she would be falling on a flexible, forgiving surface,” according to the judgment entry.

She also testified she did not know “multiple people bouncing on the trampoline at a given time created the particular risk of a ‘double bounce’ which could project her out of control even though she was only standing on the perimeter of the trampoline ‘lightly’ bouncing,” according to Walsh’s entry.

Lykins testified she was never warned of those conditions and never saw a warning on the apparatus itself.

And this may end up in the Ohio Supreme Court…

Apparently, they really have nothing better to do…

via Fark