Our neighbours have a large trampoline in their garden which all the local children bounce on. There is no adult supervision and is out of sight of their house but right next to our patio wall. Can you tell me the legality of 1. an unsupervised trampoline next door and 2. by virtue of the fact that we are the only adults who can see the trampoline does that give us any responsibilities that we don't want to have

As far as I know there are no legal rules on trampolines and manditory supervision.
You have no legal responsibility for a trampoline next door. But feel free to discuss your concerns with your next door neighbours any time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowes

Our neighbours have a large trampoline in their garden which all the local children bounce on. There is no adult supervision and is out of sight of their house but right next to our patio wall. Can you tell me the legality of 1. an unsupervised trampoline next door and 2. by virtue of the fact that we are the only adults who can see the trampoline does that give us any responsibilities that we don't want to have

---

This is a question to run past your insurance agent -

But you cannot be "assigned" responsibility on someone else's property without your consent when you are not on the other person's property.

My question is - if a child is injured and you knew there was a danger in your locality do you have a duty to report the danger? Your insurance agent or company will know.

Somewhat different but I am aware of a dog bite in my area. Apparently the neighbors thought the dog was dangerous and were vocal about it to the other neighbors (but not the owner), did nothing and it bit (rather severely) a child who wandered into the yard. In an attempt to get more insurance the neighbors were questioned as to what they did to prevent the accident after they realized the danger. I don't think it's a case but an Attorney thought it was worth a try.

Local; laws vary. There may actually be laws in your town about trampolines. I would check with town hall. But I really don't think you have any responsibility or liability here.

1. Is it on your property? I understand you said no
2. do you own it, I understand that is no

You have really no legal obligation but the owner of it has a lot of liability, in fact they could be liabel even if they are not home and someone tresspasses on uses it.

If you were to observe some extremely dangerious act, and did not report it, or do something, yes the parent of the injured child could well try and sue you, nothing can stop them from trying.

Sounds like a train wreck ready to happen any minute now. Contact the local authorities and see what they have to say about unsupervised equipment that could be lethal to children. More so due to it being next to a retaining wall. WHAT were these people thinking anyway or more appropriately, what were they drinking at the time they installed this hazard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowes

Our neighbours have a large trampoline in their garden which all the local children bounce on. There is no adult supervision and is out of sight of their house but right next to our patio wall. Can you tell me the legality of 1. an unsupervised trampoline next door and 2. by virtue of the fact that we are the only adults who can see the trampoline does that give us any responsibilities that we don't want to have

---

The first step in any case like this is establishing that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, and violated that duty in order to show negligence. If you don't exercise any control over the trampoline, and it isn't on your land, there is no basis for liability against you, absent some type of freakish acton your part(Sharpening the tops of the posts of the nearby fence, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sideoutshu

The first step in any case like this is establishing that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, and violated that duty in order to show negligence. If you don't exercise any control over the trampoline, and it isn't on your land, there is no basis for liability agaisnt you, absent some type of freakish acton your part(Sharpening the tops of the posts of the nearby fence, etc.)

---

But that doesn't mean someone won't try to make a case if there is no/little insurance on the part of the homeowner - once again, one call to an insurance agent/company wouldn't hurt.

Or do nothing and see what happens next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

But that doesn't mean someone won't try to make a case if there is no/little insurance on the part of the homeowner - once again, one call to an insurance agent/company wouldn't hurt.

Or do nothing and see what happens next.

---

Well someone could sue me because Mike Tyson punched them in the face. I bet they don't recover though. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sideoutshu

Well someone could sue me because Mike Tyson punched them in the face. I bet they don't recover though. ;)

---

I never said they would recover - I just said they would make the attempt and hope the HOs would throw in something rather than fight the claim.

I find it hard to believe you have never used the shotgun approach - but perhaps it's different in NYC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sideoutshu

Well someone could sue me because Mike Tyson punched them in the face. I bet they don't recover though. ;)

---

If you lived next door and told your neighbors - everyone but the Police - that Mike Tyson was creating a public hazard, threatening to punch people in the face, would you be named? Very possibly.

I never said anyone would recover from the neighbor - I just said they could very well try. Sometimes the HOs will throw in somerthing to end the pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I never said they would recover - I just said they would make the attempt and hope the HOs would throw in something rather than fight the claim.

I find it hard to believe you have never used the shotgun approach - but perhaps it's different in NYC.

---

The "shotgun approach" as you call it, and bringing a patently frivolous lawsuit are two different things.

Shotgun approach = suing the anesthesiologist and cardiology consult in a surgical malpractice case

Frivolous lawsuit = suing someone against whom you have no plausible theory of liability.

I have no idea why you think you have the only legal opinion that counts or are the only Attorney "worth his salt" - I work for upwards of 10 law firms. I am looking for excess coverage, other Defendants, other theories of liability all the time.

I realize you have posted you have 4 employees in your firm who do exactly what I do - which is odd because I had no idea you have any knowledge (or understanding) of what I do. Unnecessary personal slam and perhaps that is where your hostility is coming from. Unusual to find a Harvard-educated Attorney arguing on a public message board - I would think most don't have the time.

In MY AREA at least the shotgun approach is suing the person who owns the trampoline, interviewing neighbors for other "possible" Defendants and "possibly" naming them. You shoot a gun and the buckshot goes where it goes.

Maybe in you are correct in your part of the World, maybe in your law firm - but not where I am.