719 N.W.2d 540 (2006)
The injured party was attempting flips on a trampoline when he was paralyzed. He then filed a product liability action against the manufacturer. Summary judgment was granted, and the injured party sought review. In affirming, the appellate court held that the injured party's claim for design defect failed. The injured party was arguing that, even though the product met the manufacturer's design specifications, the specifications themselves created unreasonable risks.
- Although a showing of a reasonable alternative design was usually necessary, the injured party argued that he met an exception to this since the trampoline itself was manifestly unreasonable based on its low social utility and high degree of danger.
- However, the manifestly unreasonable exception was used sparingly.
- It was not appropriate based on the fact that trampolines were widely used, caused fewer injuries than other activities, and had health benefits.
- Next, the injured party failed to establish that the warnings were inadequate.
- The trampoline and the safety ring surrounding it both had numerous warnings, including one relating to the very act that the injured party was attempting when the accident occurred.
The decision was affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.