Hey, there! Log in / Register
South End man sues over injuries sustained while playing trampoline basketball
By adamg on Fri, 07/26/2024 - 12:38pm
A South End man today sued a South Shore trampoline park for the foot slicing and subsequent infection and scarring he says he suffered because the place recklessly failed to provide any padding for the metal rod and associated bolts and screws that anchor its basketball hoops at its trampoline-basketball court.
In his suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Juan Garcia says that while playing trampoline basketball on Dec. 10, 2022, he landed on one of the bases, slicing open his foot, which required medical care to staunch the bleeding and ease the swelling - and then more care for the infection he developed.
Garcia charges that Sky Zone, in the Collection Mall in Kingston - which is also home to the Big Bouncy Party inflatable-bounce-house center - was completely negligent in not protecting people bouncing and jumping while aiming for hoops from the dangers of exposed, sharp and hard metal surfaces, or in legal terms:
The Defendant, given the use of the Premises, knew or should have known that the basketball hoop bases were made of metal and had sharp metal nuts, bolts and/or screws on them on the trampoline basketball court creating a foreseeable risk of harm to invitees like the Plaintiff and at all relevant times should have ensured this equipment was properly padded and safe.
Garcia is seeking damages, costs and attorney's fees. In a cover sheet, he says he racked up close to $21,000 in ambulance, medical and physical-therapy costs.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete complaint | 739.5 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
JAFO
JAFO
did hee sine u waivər ?
did hee sine u waivər ?
Is that why
They make people sign those waivers?
I could see if this was some kind of egregious actions, but it's a basketball hoop and there are trampolines. Everything is pretty much spelled out.
Waivers are all well and good
Waivers are all well and good but if something is systematic and obvious the waiver is not valid. I am not a judge and do not know all the facts but based off of what is presented here it looks like a waiver could be put aside since the argument is the company should have known better than to leave this stuff exposed. Not saying they are in the wrong , just that the argument itself is a logical one to look into.
If they put glass shards all over the mat would a waiver cover them for that? I know that's extreme but it helps prove the point. The argument is over whether or not it's reasonable the company did not cover that stuff. If the company can prove that is standard procedure and produce evidence that the course had been inspected and passed safety criteria under the conditions it was in when the accident happened then the waiver would take on a greater role.
Seems kinda negligent not to
Seems kinda negligent not to have covered sharps hazards and a bad PR practice for the entire Sky Zone name not to do right by this customer and all future customers who believe broken bones and concussions are par for the course, but not lacerations. Then again, how many people will know or care?