The plaintiff was using the minitrampoline to propel himself into a front flip. The defendant park district argued the risk involved in the use of the minitrampoline was analogous to the risk of falling from a height and was open and obvious. This court found the use of the mini- trampoline involved special risks that could not be compared with the risks of falling from a height or recreational activities such as diving. Johnson would control if the present case involved a minitrampoline. We find it distinguishable when a round recreational trampoline is involved.
Distinct differences exist between the two pieces of equipment and their uses.
A minitrampoline is used to propel a person off the trampoline and into a gymnastics or tumbling maneuver. It would normally be used by those engaged in tumbling or gymnastics with a higher skill level than the average recreational jumper. A round trampoline, such as the one used by Christa Ford, is intended for recreational use and is used by backyard jumpers, not to propel themselves off of it and into other maneuvers, but for jumping up and down and remaining on it. The skill level required is not unusually high and the dangers of using it would be more analogous to the dangers involved in falling from a height. Our research has revealed a dearth of Illinois cases dealing with an assessment of the open and obvious danger of a recreational trampoline.