Trampoline Park Injuries to Children: What Parents Should Know About Waivers and Safety Rules

A parent who signed a trampoline-park waiver should not automatically assume that a seriously injured child has no claim. Utah Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly recognized a strong public policy against allowing a parent to prospectively release a minor child’s negligence claim, and Utah’s trampoline-park statute separately imposes specific duties involving industry safety standards, supervision, inspections, warning signs, injury records, emergency preparation, and liability insurance. The park can still argue that an injury resulted from an inherent risk of trampoline activity, but Utah law does not simply declare every trampoline injury unavoidable or immunize a compliant park from negligence. Whether a viable claim exists depends on what happened, what safety rules applied, whether the park followed them, and what the evidence shows. (⁠Justia Law)

That distinction matters because trampoline parks combine predictable recreational risks with risks that can be increased by poor supervision, defective equipment, inadequate separation of jumpers, unsafe activity design, or failure to enforce rules. Children may suffer fractures, dislocations, head injuries, spinal injuries, and other significant trauma, and medical literature has documented serious injuries associated with commercial trampoline parks. The American Academy of Pediatrics has also emphasized the danger associated with multiple simultaneous users and flips or somersaults, particularly for younger children and for head and cervical-spine injuries. A serious case therefore should not be reduced to the argument that “trampolines are dangerous” without asking whether the park did what Utah law and accepted safety practices required. (⁠American Academy of Pediatrics)

A Parent’s Waiver Does Not Erase a Child’s Utah Negligence Claim

The leading Utah case is Hawkins v. Peart. There, the Utah Supreme Court held that a parent could not prospectively release an eleven-year-old child’s negligence claim arising from a recreational activity, reasoning that public policy protects a minor’s right to pursue compensation for injuries caused by another person’s negligence. The court also refused to enforce an indemnity provision that would have shifted the financial consequences of the child’s claim back onto the parent. The basic concern was that a parent should not be able to bargain away a legal claim belonging to the child before the injury occurs. (⁠Justia Law)

The Utah Supreme Court later reaffirmed that principle in Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Finance, a case involving a ten-year-old skier whose father had signed an assumption-of-risk and release agreement. The court specifically recognized Hawkins as declaring that allowing a parent to release a minor’s prospective negligence claim violates public policy, although Utah statutes can create specific exceptions in particular recreational settings. Utah’s Trampoline Park Safety chapter does not contain a provision generally authorizing parents to waive their children’s future negligence claims.

The Waiver Still Matters to the Investigation

Saying that a parental waiver may not extinguish the child’s negligence claim does not mean the document is irrelevant. The waiver may contain warnings, descriptions of risks, representations about the child’s health, rules of participation, arbitration language, or provisions addressing the parent’s own claims. The park may also rely on the waiver as evidence that particular dangers were disclosed before participation. The actual language should therefore be preserved and reviewed rather than ignored.

The circumstances surrounding the signature can matter as well. Many trampoline parks use online forms completed before arrival, tablet-based agreements at check-in, or waivers connected to a birthday-party reservation. The electronic record may show who signed, what version of the document was presented, when it was accepted, and what safety material accompanied it. Preserving that version is important because parks can revise waiver language and online procedures over time, making a later website printout different from what the parent actually saw.

Utah Has a Specific Trampoline Park Safety Law

Utah does not regulate commercial trampoline parks solely through general negligence law. Title 11, Chapter 63 of the Utah Code specifically governs trampoline-park safety and requires operators to comply with industry standards addressing signage, equipment and facility condition, staff training, restricted participant behavior, separation of participants by age or size where necessary, maintenance and injury records, emergency response, supervision, and injury tracking. The statute also requires trampoline parks to obtain and maintain a local business license conditioned on compliance with the chapter. Those requirements give an injury investigation concrete operational questions to examine. (⁠Utah Legislature)

Current industry guidance is also relevant to understanding what “industry standards” may involve. ASTM International’s current F2970-25 standard addresses the design, manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, and major modification of commercial or institutional trampoline courts, and it includes subjects such as patron education and trampoline children zones. Whether a particular ASTM provision applies to an individual accident can depend on the equipment, date, facility, and other facts, so the standard should not be treated as a universal negligence checklist. It nevertheless illustrates that commercial trampoline safety involves much more than putting padding around springs. (⁠ASTM Store)

Utah Requires Actual Supervision of the Trampoline Court

Utah Code section 11-63-304 requires trampoline-park employees to monitor the trampoline court and participants during all hours of operation. The operator must also ensure that enough employees are monitoring so that each area of the trampoline court can be viewed. That statutory language makes supervision evidence particularly important when an injury involves dangerous horseplay, repeated rule violations, multiple children landing in the same area, unsafe flips, or an activity continuing without intervention. A park cannot satisfy the supervision requirement merely by having employees somewhere in the building if the relevant area cannot actually be monitored. (⁠Utah Legislature)

The existence of an employee nearby still does not automatically prove adequate supervision. The investigation may ask where monitors were positioned, how many participants were active, whether the monitor had other responsibilities, what conduct occurred before the injury, and whether the employee had a reasonable opportunity to intervene. Video footage can be especially important because it may show not only the accident but several minutes of unsafe conduct preceding it. Staffing schedules, training materials, internal policies, and incident reports can then show whether the operation matched the park’s stated safety system.

Age and Size Separation Can Matter When Children Jump Together

Utah’s statute specifically identifies separation of participants based on age, size, or other necessary factors as one of the subjects on which trampoline parks must comply with industry standards. That requirement is significant because differences in body size can materially affect trampoline forces when children share connected jumping surfaces. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long identified multiple simultaneous users as a major trampoline-injury mechanism and has reported particular fracture risk for younger children. A case involving a small child launched or destabilized by a much larger participant deserves scrutiny of the park’s separation rules and how they were enforced. (⁠Utah Legislature)

The evidence may include wristbands, age classifications, height or weight restrictions, court assignments, posted rules, employee instructions, and video of the area. If a facility created designated toddler, junior, performance, or advanced areas, the question becomes whether the child was placed in the appropriate area and whether staff prevented incompatible participants from entering it. If the park had no meaningful separation system despite circumstances requiring one, that can become part of the negligence analysis. A defense that the children simply collided does not answer whether reasonable separation should have prevented the collision.

Equipment Condition and Maintenance Are Part of the Safety Case

Trampoline injuries can also arise from the physical condition of the park. Padding can move or deteriorate, springs and frames can become exposed, nets can fail, trampoline beds can wear, foam pits can lose appropriate characteristics, and structural components can loosen or shift. Utah law requires industry-standard compliance concerning equipment materials, layout, condition, and maintenance. The annual inspection process also requires the operator to provide proof that the trampoline court is maintained in good repair. (⁠Utah Legislature)

That makes maintenance records valuable evidence after an equipment-related injury. Investigators may need inspection reports, repair histories, manufacturer instructions, photographs, work orders, prior complaints, and records concerning the specific trampoline or attraction. The equipment itself may need to be examined before it is repaired or replaced. A torn pad that is discarded the next morning can eliminate physical evidence that no witness testimony can fully recreate.

Utah Requires Annual Inspections and Safety Records

A Utah trampoline park must arrange for an inspector to examine the facility and its records at least once each calendar year. The inspection is intended to address industry safety standards and the statutory requirements governing signage, employee training and emergency equipment, supervision, and injury-response procedures. During that process, the operator must provide evidence concerning the condition of the trampoline court along with maintenance, inspection, training, and injury logs. The inspector then provides a written report and certification concerning compliance. (⁠Utah Legislature)

Those records can become highly significant after a child is seriously injured. A recent clean inspection may support the defense on some issues, while inspection findings, repeated maintenance concerns, missing records, or recurring injury patterns may support further investigation. The statutory system also means that potentially relevant information may exist outside the immediate accident file maintained by the park. Local licensing records and inspection certifications can help establish what the facility represented about its compliance before the injury occurred.

Injury Reports and Surveillance Should Be Preserved Quickly

Utah law requires trampoline-park operators to maintain an in-house injury reporting system and emergency response plan and to retain records related to them. That gives a child’s injury claim a potentially important source of contemporaneous evidence about what employees observed and how the incident was handled. The park’s report may identify witnesses, employees, equipment, location, reported mechanism, or immediate statements. Prior reports involving the same attraction or similar mechanism can also become relevant depending on the circumstances. (⁠Utah Legislature)

Surveillance is often even more important because a serious accident may happen in seconds. Video can show the child’s activity before the injury, other participants, monitor placement, crowding, rule violations, the condition of pads or barriers, and the staff response afterward. Many businesses use systems that eventually overwrite old footage, so preservation should occur promptly. Cell-phone videos from birthday guests and other parents can provide additional angles that the facility’s cameras missed.

“Inherent Risk” Does Not Mean the Park Is Automatically Immune

Utah’s trampoline statute recognizes that trampoline activities contain inherent risks, defined generally as dangers or conditions integral to activities occurring at a trampoline park. But section 11-63-502 does not create a blanket rule that every injury resulting from trampoline activity must be dismissed. Instead, when a claim involves an inherent risk, the operator may raise compliance with the statute’s safety provisions as a defense, and the factfinder considers that compliance under Utah’s comparative-fault framework. The structure of the statute therefore makes actual safety compliance important rather than irrelevant. (⁠Utah Legislature)

The distinction can be illustrated by two very different injuries. A child who simply mistimes an ordinary bounce despite properly maintained equipment and adequate supervision presents a different case from a child who is injured after employees allow dangerous overcrowding, ignore repeated prohibited flips, or leave damaged padding unrepaired. Both incidents occur in a trampoline park, but that fact alone does not make the underlying conduct identical. The legal analysis asks what risk actually caused the injury and whether negligent operation increased or created that risk.

Safety Signs Are Required, but Signs Are Not the Entire Safety System

Utah requires trampoline parks to display prominent contrasting safety, warning, advisory, and instructional signs reflecting the park’s rules. Those signs can help establish what conduct the operator itself considered unsafe. They can also become evidence when the defense argues that the child ignored a clearly communicated rule. A photograph of the actual signs in place on the date of injury can therefore matter. (⁠Utah Legislature)

Warnings do not necessarily substitute for operational safety measures required elsewhere in the statute. A sign saying “one jumper at a time” has limited value if staff routinely allow multiple children onto an area without intervention. Likewise, a prohibition on dangerous flips does not establish reasonable operation if monitors watch repeated violations without acting. A complete investigation compares written rules with actual practices.

Medical Literature Confirms That Trampoline Park Injuries Can Be Serious

Research published in Pediatrics has documented fractures, sprains, dislocations, and serious injuries at trampoline parks, including injuries requiring hospital admission and reported spinal-cord injuries. A later study published in 2023 found that injuries at safety-standard-compliant trampoline parks still occurred, including significant injuries, while also finding declining exposure-adjusted injury rates over the study period. The useful point is not that every trampoline park is inherently unsafe. It is that serious injury is a recognized possibility and safety practices can matter to injury prevention. (⁠American Academy of Pediatrics)

The American Academy of Pediatrics has continued to reaffirm its trampoline-safety guidance, most recently with reference and data updates in 2026. Its guidance identifies multiple simultaneous users as an important injury mechanism and notes that flips and somersaults can cause catastrophic cervical-spine injuries. Those medical observations can help explain why participant separation, rules, supervision, and enforcement are meaningful safety issues rather than technical paperwork. They do not decide legal negligence, but they provide useful context for evaluating preventable risk. (⁠American Academy of Pediatrics)

Serious Child Injuries Require a Long-Term Damages Evaluation

A trampoline injury involving a child can create damages that are difficult to understand immediately. A fracture involving a growth plate may require ongoing orthopedic follow-up, a spinal injury can affect mobility and independence, and a traumatic brain injury may create cognitive or behavioral problems that become clearer over time. Future treatment, rehabilitation, school disruption, physical limitations, permanent impairment, and effects on later employment can all become relevant depending on the injury. The claim should therefore be evaluated around the child’s actual prognosis rather than simply the amount of the emergency-room bill.

This is especially important when an insurer makes an early settlement approach. Children may still be healing when the carrier seeks a release, and the long-term effect of a major orthopedic or neurologic injury may not yet be known. Medical liens, insurance reimbursement, future care, available liability coverage, and the legal requirements for resolving a minor’s claim can also require careful attention. A parent should not treat an early settlement number as meaningful until the future consequences and the rights being released are understood.

Utah Requires Trampoline Parks to Carry Liability Insurance

Utah’s trampoline statute requires an operator to maintain liability insurance of at least $500,000 per incident and $1 million in the aggregate for participant injuries arising from negligence or misconduct in construction, maintenance, or operation of the park. The operator must maintain proof of that insurance and certify compliance as part of the licensing process. Those figures are statutory minimums, not a statement that every park carries only those amounts or that every serious injury is worth that amount. Actual coverage should be investigated in a significant case.

A catastrophic child injury can exceed even substantial insurance limits. The investigation may therefore need to identify the operator, property owner, equipment manufacturer, maintenance company, or other entity whose conduct contributed to the injury, depending on the facts. Additional insured relationships and excess or umbrella coverage can also matter. Coverage should be mapped before a settlement releases companies or claims that have not been fully investigated.

A Waiver Should Not End the Investigation Before It Begins

The most important point for parents is that signing the trampoline park’s electronic waiver does not justify assuming there is no case. Utah law protects a minor’s own negligence claim differently from an adult’s recreational waiver, while the Trampoline Park Safety chapter creates specific operational requirements that can be tested against the facts. The strongest cases are built through evidence showing what happened, whether the risk was truly inherent, what employees did, whether the park complied with safety standards, and whether a preventable failure caused the injury.

Gabriel K. White represents injured children and families through The Legal Beagle in serious Utah personal injury cases. A trampoline-park case may require rapid preservation of video, injury reports, inspection records, maintenance records, training materials, staffing information, the exact waiver, and evidence concerning the park’s safety practices before those materials change or disappear. Parents should understand those issues before giving detailed recorded statements, signing additional documents, or accepting a settlement while the child’s long-term prognosis remains uncertain. Call The Legal Beagle at (801) 915-6152 or contact the firm at https://www.mylegalbeagle.com/contact.