This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P lived with his wife and son in one unit of a two-family home that he rented from Ds. Ds and their children lived in the other unit. On or about June 18, 2005, Ds' son received a trampoline as a birthday gift. D set up the trampoline immediately adjacent to an inflatable vinyl swimming pool that he had set up in the backyard earlier that spring. The backyard was large enough to allow the trampoline and pool to be placed apart from each other. D set up the trampoline directly beside the pool because he had seen it done before at other houses and wanted to enable people to jump from the trampoline into the pool. The pool was two feet deep, and the trampoline was three feet high. The trampoline was accessible by two ladders, one of which was placed directly in the pool. D disregarded the warnings printed on the side of the pool cautioning against jumping or diving into the pool. He knew that setting up the trampoline next to the pool might be dangerous, but thought it would be 'fun.' Ps' and Ds' children and visitors frequently used the pool and trampoline. Ds were aware that people were jumping from the trampoline into the pool. Ds did not stop the children from using the trampoline and pool in this manner. Ds moved to South Carolina but continued to rent the other unit to Ps. Ds left the pool and trampoline in the backyard to be used. P, who had never before used the trampoline, came home from work and decided to play with his son on the trampoline while his wife recorded a video of them to send to their extended family in Brazil. P decided to entertain his son by flipping into the pool. P was trying to 'flip over and sit on [his] butt in the water.' A video recording shows P attempting to perform a front flip into the pool. P severely underrotated the flip, entered the water headfirst, and struck his head on the bottom of the pool. P sustained a burst fracture of his C-5 vertebrae and is permanently paralyzed from the upper chest down. Police officers took photographs of the trampoline and pool, which showed the pool manufacturer's warning label printed on the side, cautioning against jumping and diving. The warning appeared in six languages, including Portuguese. The label also included pictographs conveying the same warning. P's medical bills and related expenses exceeded $700,000 at the time of trial. The trial judge instructed the jury on the 'open and obvious danger' doctrine: '[A] landowner's duty to protect lawful visitors against dangerous conditions on his property ordinarily does not extend to dangers that would be obvious to persons of average intelligence. This is often referred to as the open and obvious danger rule. If the particular dangers inherent in a particular condition would be open and obvious to a person of average intelligence, then the landowner does not have a duty to warn the visitor to avoid encountering the danger. The standard is an objective one, that is, would a reasonable person of average intelligence be aware of the open and obvious danger of the condition?' He refused to give P's requested instruction based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra at § 343A(1) & comment f, which contemplates that a landowner may, in certain circumstances, be liable for injuries resulting from open and obvious dangers. P appealed and appealed from an affirmation by the appeals court.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.