## Facts

- Delbert Parish and Shelley Tatro bought a 14-foot JumpKing trampoline for backyard use and assembled it.
- After Delbert nearly fell off while attempting a somersault, they bought a “fun ring,” a netlike enclosure with a single entry point.
- On September 11, 1999, James Parish attempted a back somersault on the enclosed trampoline, landed on his head, and became quadriplegic.
- In August 2001, Parish sued JumpKing alleging (1) defective design of the trampoline/enclosure and (2) negligent failure to warn about the dangers of using the product, including flips and somersaults.
- The district court granted JumpKing summary judgment on all claims, and Parish appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that the trampoline/enclosure was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that any defect proximately caused Parish’s injury.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that JumpKing’s warnings were inadequate and that different or additional warnings would have prevented the injury.
3. Whether the open-and-obvious nature of the risk associated with trampoline flips/somersaults supported judgment for the manufacturer as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for JumpKing on all claims.
- The court held Parish failed to produce sufficient evidence to support essential elements of a design-defect claim, including unreasonably dangerous design and causation.
- The court held Parish failed to produce sufficient evidence that warnings were legally inadequate or that an alternative warning would have changed his conduct and avoided injury.
- The court treated the risk of serious head/neck injury from attempting a back somersault on a trampoline as open and obvious on the undisputed facts, reinforcing summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact; a nonmovant cannot rely on pleadings and must present evidence supporting determinative elements of the claim.
- Design-defect liability requires evidence that the product, as designed, was unreasonably dangerous and that the alleged defect proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury; conclusory allegations are insufficient at summary judgment.
- Failure-to-warn liability requires evidence that the warning was inadequate in light of the risk and that the inadequacy caused the injury, including proof that a different warning would have altered the plaintiff’s behavior.
- The obviousness of a danger is relevant to whether a product is unreasonably dangerous and to whether additional warnings would likely prevent harm; where the risk is apparent as a matter of law on undisputed facts, it can support summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the trampoline manufacturer because the plaintiff did not present competent evidence creating a triable dispute that the product’s design or warnings were unreasonably dangerous or that any alleged defect or warning deficiency caused the injury, and because the danger of severe injury from attempting a back somersault on a trampoline was open and obvious.


Parish v. JumpKing, Inc., 719 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2006)