A man who testified he grew up performing backflips in his father’s gym can sue a Michigan play center over injuries he suffered performing the move in a “Scooby Doo” bouncy house as an adult.
The Michigan Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit by Nicholas Noble, 30, who claims “he was paralyzed for some time” after landing on his head attempting flips to impress a friend’s daughter. A Monroe County Circuit Court judge threw out his case, finding Funland had no duty to protect Noble from himself. A label at the bouncy house entrance stated “NO flips, wrestling or running.”
A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling a jury might find Funland was liable for failing to station an attendant at the bouncy house to prevent Noble from endangering himself with flips. The unsigned opinion drew a strong dissent from Judge Christopher Murray, who cited a long line of trampoline lawsuits in which courts in Michigan and elsewhere have rejected claims manufacturers’ warnings weren’t sufficient to keep people from injuring themselves.
“No reasonable juror could conclude that but for the addition of more safeguards—in particular, the addition of a staff person to verbally warn plaintiff of these dangers/prohibition—plaintiff’s accident would not have occurred,” Judge Murray wrote.
Noble was hanging out at the home of a friend, Jesse O’Neil, in May 2023 when they decided to go to Family and Friends Funland at the Mall of Monroe. O’Neil’s daughter asked Noble to accompany her into the “Scooby Doo” bouncy house. There were three attendants for seven or so bouncy houses.
The little girl asked if Noble could do a backflip, which he performed. She asked him to do it again, but this time he landed on his head. He claims “he was paralyzed for some time” and still has difficulties with his limbs.
Noble sued Funland and hired an “Inflatable, Trampoline, and Amusement Device Expert” named Lance Miller to press his case. Miller said “industry standards” required an attendant at each bouncy house “to provide instruction and/or behavior correction.” Funland argued the expert’s industry standards weren’t legally binding and the plaintiff could only provide speculative evidence his injury was caused by the lack of an attendant.
The trial judge agreed and dismissed Noble’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeals said that was error and a jury must decide whether Funland breached the standard of care. The label at the entrance not only warned against performing flips, but also said “DO NOT use the ride unless attendant is present.”
A jury could find Funland at fault, the panel concluded: “It is precisely the sort of orthopedic injury that is a foreseeable consequence of a bounce house user performing dangerous stunts inside the device.”
Judge Murray rejected that analysis, noting that Noble first said he had plenty of experience doing back flips and didn’t need supervision. In a later affidavit, Noble said “if a Funland employee had blown a whistle and told me that flips were not allowed after I did the first flip, I would not have attempted a second one.”
A plaintiff can’t create a factual dispute for the jury to decide by contradicting his earlier testimony, the judge said.
Either way, Noble has regrets. He also testified “that after suffering the injury his friend asked plaintiff why he was even attempting to do a back flip at his age,” Judge Murray wrote.
