Fun at home may be held to an institutional standard.
In a case decided long before the proliferation of trampoline parks, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania felt it was error to exclude an expert’s testimony simply because the trampoline at the defendant’s home was of a “recreational non-folding, non-instructional type” and not an instructional type requiring expert testimony. The court vacated and remanded the case to allow expert testimony as to standards that apply to “all trampolines.” Further, the court opined that the safe use of a trampoline, even a backyard home trampoline, was not within the common knowledge of the average juror. It will be interesting to see if this case is brought up again with the new normal of bounce houses and trampoline parks having versions of activities that show up in smaller formats in many backyards.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2017
Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.