If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

SCOTT REDMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

May 6, 2021

v No. 349683

Macomb Circuit Court

SPRING LOADED I, LLC, and SPRING LOADED 

III, LLC,

LC No. 2016-004272-NO

Defendants,

and

SPRING LOADED II, LLC, doing business as 

AIRTIME TRAMPOLINE-STERLING HEIGHTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this tort action, plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order granting summary 

disposition in favor of defendant, Spring Loaded II, LLC (Spring Loaded II), under MCR 

2.116(C)(10).

1

 We affirm. 

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, a 47 year-old, 275 pound man, sustained a severe ankle injury while jumping on 

a trampoline at a facility owned and operated by Spring Loaded II. Plaintiff’s injury was captured 

on a surveillance camera. Spring Loaded II’s trampoline court facility is a large room filled with 

 

1 Spring Loaded I, LLC, Spring Loaded II, LLC, and Spring Loaded III, LLC are separate 

franchises of an entity named Airtime International, and are owned by the parent company Spring 

Loaded LLC. Spring Loaded I, LLC and Spring Loaded III, LLC were dismissed from the case 

below and are not part of this appeal.
-2-

trampolines that are connected to one another by padded frames. Plaintiff’s injury occurred as he 

attempted to jump from one trampoline to another. He gained momentum to hurdle a two-footwide section of padding by jumping near the edge of the trampoline. In doing so, his ankle buckled

and he fell onto the trampoline. Although he was in close proximity to the padding, it does not 

appear that he touched the padding when he landed. 

Plaintiff sought to recover damages from Spring Loaded II under a negligence theory and 

for Spring Loaded II’s alleged failure to comply with the Trampoline Court Safety Act, MCL 

691.1731 et seq. After engaging in discovery, Spring Loaded II filed a motion for summary 

disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The circuit court granted Spring Loaded II’s motion and 

this appeal followed. 

II STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. El-Khalil 

v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159; 934 NW2d 665 (2019). A motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a claim. Id. at 160. When considering a motion under 

MCR 2.116(C)(10), the trial court must consider all evidence submitted by the parties in the light 

most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may 

only be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (citation omitted). “A genuine 

issue of material fact exists when the record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds 

might differ.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The circuit court properly granted Spring Loaded II’s motion for summary disposition 

under MCR 2.116(C)(10).

A. THE TRAMPOLINE COURT SAFETY ACT

Plaintiff argues that summary disposition was inappropriate because there were genuine 

issues of material fact regarding whether Spring Loaded II violated the Trampoline Court Safety 

Act and whether the alleged violations caused plaintiff’s injury.2 We disagree.

 

2 Plaintiff argues in his reply brief that the issue of causation was not properly before the circuit 

court because it was not raised by Spring Loaded II when seeking summary disposition. We 

disagree. Under MCR 2.116(G)(4), “[a] motion under subrule (C)(10) must specifically identify 

the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” 

Spring Loaded II addressed the issue of proximate cause in its April 17, 2019 supplemental brief 

in support of its motion for summary disposition. Specifically, Spring Loaded II rebutted the 

opinion of plaintiff’s expert that Spring Loaded II’s failure to develop and communicate weight 

restrictions contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Spring Loaded II argued that the expert’s opinion 

regarding causation was mere speculation and plaintiff’s injury was caused solely by plaintiff’s 

improper landing technique rather than any alleged violation of the Trampoline Court Safety Act.
-3-

The Trampoline Court Safety Act prescribes duties and liabilities of trampoline court 

operators and individuals who use trampoline courts. MCL 691.1737 provides that “[a] 

trampoliner, spectator, or operator who violates this act is liable in a civil action for damages for 

the portion of the loss or damage that results from the violation.” Thus, in order to recover under 

MCL 691.1737, a party must establish both a violation of the Trampoline Court Safety Act and 

causation. Under MCL 691.1733(b), a trampoline court operator shall “[c]omply with the safety 

standards specified in ASTM[3] F2970-13, ‘Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, 

Installation, Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Major Modification of Trampoline Courts’

published in 2013 by the American society for testing and materials.” 

Plaintiff argues that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II’s failure to 

develop and communicate patron size restrictions to employees and patrons violated ASTM 

F2970-13 §§ 6, 9.1, 16.21, 16.22, and A.1.1.4 as well as ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.2 and 4.2.1, thereby 

causing plaintiff’s injury. However, ASTM F2970-13 § 6 applies only to “designers/engineers or 

manufacturers” of trampolines and § A.1.1.4 applies only to manufacturers. Spring Loaded II is 

an operator of a trampoline court facility and plaintiff presented no evidence that Spring Loaded 

designed or manufactured the trampoline. 

ASTM F2970-13 § 9.1 requires trampoline manufacturers to furnish operating and 

maintenance information to trampoline court operators, and ASTM F2970-13 § 9.2 requires 

trampoline court operators to permanently affix the operating and maintenance information in a 

visible location in the trampoline court. ASTM F2970-13 § 9.2.5 requires the operating and 

maintenance information to include the “[m]aximum total patron weight per trampoline bed and 

per trampoline court.” Spring Loaded II conceded that the information plate was not posted in the 

trampoline court facility, and explained that the omission was due to the manufacturer’s failure to 

provide an information plate for that trampoline. However, even if a reasonable trier of fact could 

find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 § 9.1 by failing to post the information plate, 

no reasonable trier of fact could find that the omission caused plaintiff’s injury. Under ASTM 

F2970-13 § 6.8.3, trampoline manufacturers are generally required to design trampolines that are 

able to support users weighing 300 pounds and plaintiff testified in his deposition that he weighed 

approximately 275 pounds on the date of his injury. Thus, plaintiff would not have been informed 

that he exceeded the maximum user weight even if the information plate had been posted. 

Moreover, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that he would not have used the trampolines if 

the information plate had been posted.4 

 

3 ASTM is an acronym for the American Society for Testing and Materials. 

4 Although plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he would not have used the trampolines if he had 

been warned about the increased risk of injury associated with higher weight, plaintiff’s affidavit 

was filed as part of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after the circuit court granted summary 

disposition in favor of Spring Loaded II. When reviewing an order granting or denying summary 

disposition, we consider only the evidence that was properly presented to the trial court in deciding 

the motion. Village of Edmore v Crystal Automation Sys Inc, 322 Mich App 244, 262; 911 NW2d 

241 (2017). We will not consider evidence on appeal that was first presented in a subsequent 
-4-

ASTM F2970-13 § 16.21 provides that the operator of a trampoline court facility “may 

deny entry to the device to any person, if in the opinion of the owner/operator the entry may cause 

above normal exposure to risk of discomfort or injury to the person who desires to enter . . . .” 

ASTM F2970-13 § 16.22 provides that “[t]rampoline court attendants should be given guide[]lines 

on the special considerations concerning patron size, and patrons with physical or mental 

disabilities or impairments . . . .” However, the word “may” indicates that ASTM F2970-13 

§ 16.21 is a discretionary provision and does not require trampoline court operators to deny entry 

to individuals that may have above normal exposure of risk to discomfort or injury. Moreover, 

plaintiff presented no evidence that any employees at Spring Loaded II believed plaintiff to be at 

an above normal risk of injury and considered exercising their discretion to deny entry to plaintiff. 

Furthermore, although Spring Loaded II should have given trampoline court attendants guidelines 

on the special considerations concerning patron size, ASTM F2970-13 § 16.22 did not require 

Spring Loaded II to do so in the instant matter. See In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich 320, 

328; 852 NW2d 747 (2014) (noting that the significance of a statutory amendment changing 

“should” to “shall” is that the statute becomes mandatory). Therefore, no reasonable trier of fact 

could find that Spring Loaded II violated ASTM F2970-13 §§ 16.21 or 16.22 by not advising its 

attendants regarding any risks associated with a 275 pound patron. In addition, the language in 

ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.2 and 4.2.1 is almost identical to the language in ASTM F2970-13 §§ 16.21 

and 16.22, and therefore, that plaintiff’s arguments with respect to those provisions fail for the 

same reasons. 

Plaintiff next argues that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Spring Loaded II violated 

ASTM F2970-13 §§ 6.1 and 14.2, as well as ASTM F770-11 §§ 4.1, 8.1, and 8.3, by failing to 

develop and communicate information regarding the risks associated with jumping near the edge 

of the trampoline bed or the risks associated with jumping from one trampoline to another, thereby 

causing plaintiff’s injury. We disagree. 

ASTM F2970-13 § 6.1 applies to designers, engineers, and manufacturers of trampolines, 

and as previously stated, plaintiff presented no evidence that Spring Loaded II was anything other 

than an operator of a trampoline facility. Additionally, ASTM F2970-13 § 14.2 requires 

trampoline court owners and operators to “notify the appropriate manufacturer(s) of any known 

incident as specified in Practice F770-11 Section 8.3.” F770-11 § 8.3 requires notification of 

incidents that result in a serious injury within seven days of the occurrence of the incident and 

incorporates F770-11 § 8.1, which states that owners and operators should complete an incident 

report including information regarding the injury. The use of the word “should” indicates that 

completing an incident report in accordance with F770-11 § 8.1 is discretionary. See In re 

Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 496 Mich at 328 (noting that the significance of a statutory amendment 

changing “should” to “shall” is that the statute becomes mandatory). Additionally, Spring Loaded 

II’s obligation to notify the manufacturer of plaintiff’s injury could not have arisen until after 

plaintiff’s injury occurred. Thus, even assuming Spring Loaded II failed to notify the trampoline 

manufacturer of plaintiff’s injury, no reasonable trier of fact could find that the failure to do so 

caused plaintiff’s injury. Similarly, F770-11 § 4.1 requires owners and operators to “read and 

 

motion for reconsideration. Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich App 466, 474 n 

6; 776 NW2d 398 (2009). Thus, we do not consider plaintiff’s affidavit here. 
-5-

become familiar with the contents of the manufacturer’s recommended operating instructions and 

specifications, when received[,]” and to prepare an “operating fact sheet” that shall be made 

available to trampoline court attendants. F770-11 § 4.1 does not mandate providing any 

information to patrons, and plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the manufacturer’s 

recommended operating instructions addressed an increased risk associated with jumping near the 

edge of a trampoline or jumping from one trampoline to another. Thus, no reasonable trier of fact 

could find that Spring Loaded II’s alleged failure to provide an operating fact sheet to trampoline 

court attendants caused plaintiff’s injury. 

B. DUTY TO WARN

Plaintiff argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Spring 

Loaded II breached its duty to warn plaintiff of the risks associated with jumping on a trampoline 

at higher weights or the risks associated with jumping from one trampoline to another. We 

disagree.

MCL 691.1736 provides: 

An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in 

that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers 

include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other 

trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result 

from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects 

or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoliner that are 

not otherwise attributable to the operator’s breach of his or her common[-]law 

duties. 

The surveillance video shows that plaintiff’s injury occurred just before he attempted to jump from 

one trampoline to another. Plaintiff jumped on the trampoline in order to gain momentum to 

traverse a small section of padded frame that joined the two trampolines. While jumping near the 

padded section, but before traversing the frame, plaintiff’s ankle buckled and he fell onto the 

trampoline. Based upon the surveillance video, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding 

whether plaintiff accepted the inherent danger of sustaining an injury from landing on the 

trampoline or trampoline pad. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot recover unless his injury was 

otherwise attributable to Spring Loaded II’s breach of its common-law duties. MCL 691.1736. 

Plaintiff contends that product sellers have a duty to transmit safety-related information 

when they know or should know that the buyer or user is unaware of the information, and this duty 

may be attributed to a successor in possession of the product. Plaintiff posits that Spring Loaded 

II had a duty to transmit safety-related information to its patrons regarding the increased risks 

associated with patron weight and jumping from one trampoline to another because Spring Loaded 

II was a successor in possession of trampolines. In support of this premise, plaintiff relies upon 

Foster v Cone-Blanchard Mach Co, 460 Mich 696, 707; 597 NW2d 506 (1999), in which our 

Supreme Court held that “in certain circumstances a successor may have an independent duty to 

warn a predecessor’s customer of defects in a predecessor’s product.” However, plaintiff failed to 

present any evidence that there were defects in the trampoline, and therefore, plaintiff’s reliance 
-6-

on Foster is misplaced. Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Spring 

Loaded II had a duty to warn in this regard. 

Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding causation because plaintiff 

failed to present any evidence that he would not have used the trampolines if he had been warned 

about the increased risk of injury associated with higher weight or jumping from one trampoline 

to another.5 

IV. CONCLUSION

The circuit court properly granted Spring Loaded II’s motion for summary disposition 

under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Accordingly, we affirm.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan 

 

5 Although plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he would not have used the trampolines if he had 

been warned about the increased risks, plaintiff’s affidavit was filed after the circuit court granted 

summary disposition in favor of Spring Loaded II. Thus, we will not consider it in this appeal. 

Village of Edmore, 322 Mich App at 262; Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc, 285 Mich App at 474

n 6.