High Court: Child’s trampolining injury claim dismissed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 615
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell considered that in circumstances where the CCTV evidence contradicted the plaintiff’s clear and genuine recollection of her accident, “her account of the mechanism of the accident must be rejected on the facts, and that account was the account given in the pleaded case.” 

Background

On 2 November 2018, the then 9-year-old plaintiff attended the defendant’s recreational indoor trampolining park in Co. Cork.

During the course of her trampolining, she suffered a displaced angulated fracture of her leg, requiring surgery and affecting her mobility for a period. 

The plaintiff issued proceedings alleging inter alia that by reason of inadequate supervision by the facility staff, she was permitted to engage in an unsafe form of trampolining resulting in serious injury.

In particular, the plaintiff pleaded that her foot was permitted to come into contact with and to become trapped at the periphery of a trampoline where the springs were attached, leading her to fall.

The defence denied liability and put the plaintiff on proof of her claims.

The High Court

Mr Justice O’ Donnell described the evidence given by the plaintiff, noting that it was given honestly and without exaggeration but that it was “equally clear to the court that the plaintiff was endeavouring to recall a traumatic incident that occurred within an extremely short space of time nearly eight years ago, when she was a relatively young child.”

The plaintiff suggested that after completing a number of circuits, her right foot got caught under the padding at the edge of the trampoline and her body was forced forward, an account which was consistent with her pleaded case and her account given to Mr David Morrissey, consultant surgeon.

The judge outlined that the accident locus was captured in contemporaneous stills taken from the CCTV footage of the incident, showing the area in which the infant plaintiff was playing and the padded walkways between the trampolines, which completely covered the spring mechanisms that maintained their tension.

The court observed that the stills were clear and confirmed the engineering evidence to the effect that unless a foot entered under the padding, there was no possibility of the foot making contact with the area above the springs and under the padding.

Mr Justice O’ Donnell opined, “The difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that the footage seen and reviewed by the court does not show her foot making contact with the padded area or slipping under it. Likewise, the footage shows that her feet landed before the yellow border on the trampoline.”

The court found this to be consistent with the evidence given by the plaintiff’s engineer, Mr Michael Byrne, who opined that it was “possible” that the accident occurred as alleged by the plaintiff, but that it was also likely that she may have just suffered an injury due to the stiffness of the springs close to the edge of the trampoline.

The High Court, in rejecting the plaintiff’s account, clarified that the finding made by the court was that the plaintiff’s recollection, while genuine, was incorrect and was contradicted by the CCTV evidence and that the court did not “consider that the plaintiff’s account was tainted by any hint of dishonesty.”

Having highlighted the need for precision in pleading personal injuries cases governed by the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Mr Justice O’ Donnell explained that the difficulty for the plaintiff was that her account of the mechanism of the accident was rejected on the facts, and that account was the account given in her pleaded case.

In respect of the requirement for precision and particularity in pleadings, the court relied upon Crean v. Harty & Ors [2020] IECA 364 and Morgan v. Electricity Supply Board [2021] IECA 29, noting the observation of the Court of Appeal in Morgan that a first instance court is required to adjudicate the pleaded case.

As to the claims that the defendant inadequately supervised or warned the plaintiff, the judge found that this did not assist the plaintiff’s pleaded case as if the plaintiff had intended to make the case that allowing children to bounce or land close to the trampoline border was unsafe per se, that issue should have been pleaded clearly in order to afford the defence an opportunity to specifically address it in preparing for trial.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Alex O’ Leary (A minor suing by her father and next friend Colin O’ Leary) v Air-Tastic Cork Limited [2026] IEHC 615