Springfree Trampoline Australia Pty Ltd v Forostenko
[2024] QCA 255 · Bond JA (Boddice JA and Davis J agreeing)
A 41-year-old man badly injured his right foot, suffering what is called a 'dancer's fracture', while jumping on a Springfree trampoline at his sister's house on Christmas Day 2017. He sued the trampoline manufacturer under consumer protection law, arguing the trampoline had a safety defect because there was no warning about plastic cleats under the edge of the mat that could roll a foot. At trial he won around $744,000. The manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeal accepted that, because the defect was the combination of a design feature plus the absence of a warning, the man had to prove that a proper warning would probably have prevented his injury. The evidence showed he routinely ignored warnings, jumped on the trampoline impulsively, and his injury came from an unintended jump. The court found he had not proved a warning would have made any difference, so his claim failed on causation. The appeal was allowed, judgment was entered for the manufacturer, and the man lost his award and was ordered to pay costs.
Incident & injury
Plaintiff injured his right foot while jumping on a Springfree trampoline; a wayward jump caused him to land near the edge of the mat over a cleat, resulting in a 'dancer's fracture'.
Read the findings as text
- No warning of cleats. Alleged safety defect.
- Causation not proved. He ignored warnings anyway.
- $744,175 lost. Reversed [2024] QSC 1.
- Body regions
- Ankle / foot, Right foot (Right)
- Diagnoses
- dancer's fracture (fifth metatarsal fracture)
- Incident date
- 25 December 2017
- Location
- Backyard of plaintiff's sister's residence
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 13 December 2024
- Claim type
- PIPA Public Liability
- Proceeding
- Appeal
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 41
- Occupation
- Not stated
- Liability
- Disputed
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the manufacturer's appeal, finding the primary judge erred in concluding the plaintiff proved causation. Because the safety defect comprised both a design feature and the lack of warning, the plaintiff was required to prove the counterfactual that an appropriate warning would probably have avoided his injury; he failed to do so. Judgment was entered for the defendant, the cross-appeal on costs was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.
Defendant
1 Springfree Trampoline Australia Pty Ltd
Manufacturer
- Judgment against this defendant
- $0
Key issues
Springfree Trampoline Australia Pty Ltd v Forostenko [2024] QCA 255
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about public liability claims in Queensland.