Nabkey v. Jack Loeks Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
| Citation | 376 Mich. 397,137 N.W.2d 132 |
| Parties | Lillian L. NABKEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACK LOEKS ENTERPRISES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Lillian Lea Nabkey, in pro. per.
Allaben & Massie, Grand Rapids (Keith A. Vander Weyden, Grand Rapids, of counsel), for appellee.
Before KAVANAGH, C. J., and DETHMERS, KELLY, BLACK, SOURIS, SMITH. O'HARA and ADAMS, JJ.
This is an appeal from a directed verdict and subsequent denial of a new trial. Plaintiff Nabkey, at the time of her alleged injury, was 39 years old. She was a graduate of a Grand Rapids high school, had taken a secretarial course, and had worked as a secretary for various professional people and businesses in Grand Rapids. In the late afternoon of a Sunday in June, 1961, while driving with a friend, she picked up two young hitchhikers. They wanted to go to Bounceland. Plaintiff took them there.
At Bounceland, just outside of Grand Rapids, defendant had installed eight or ten pit-type trampolines, enclosed by a wire fence. (See Exhibit 5, Appellee's Appendix 97b). Plaintiff, her friend, and the two boys entered the enclosure. Plaintiff saw people jumping. The boys jumped and showed plaintiff how it was done. After observing them, plaintiff tried it. She got on and off the trampoline about a half dozen times, each time jumping six or seven times. On her last turn, she saw one foot was going to land on the trampoline and the other on the ground. To avoid hitting the ground she raised her right foot and landed on the left which took all her weight. She felt sharp shooting pains in both legs. She stepped or bounced off the trampoline.
On her way home she noticed some pain in her back. Later the pain became so severe she called a doctor and was thereafter attended by a succession of physicians.
The trial judge was unable to find any negligence on the part of defendant. He held that plaintiff had voluntarily exposed herself and so had assumed the risk.
Plaintiff contends that defendant should have provided an instructor or attendant but she fails to explain how an instructor or attendant could have prevented the incident. Plaintiff fully understood the nature of the device. She observed others using it. There was nothing an instructor could have said or done which was not readily apparent to her or which, under the circumstances, was not under her own sole control. No instructor could remove the danger of becoming unbalanced. The trampoline was in good operating condition. It did exactly what it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Industries
...Menard v. Newhall, 135 Vt. 53, 55, 373 A.2d 505 (1977) ("generally known and recognized").16 See also Nabkey v. Jack Loeks Enterprises, 376 Mich. 397, 137 N.W.2d 132 (1965); Spencer v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Mich.App. 356, 367 N.W.2d 393 (1985); Van Dike v. AMF Inc., 146 Mich.App. 176, 379 N.W......
-
Charles Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko
...(10).29 MCR 2.610.30 Where reasonable minds can reach only one result, causation is a question of law. Nabkey v. Jack Loeks Enterprises, Inc, 376 Mich. 397, 400, 137 N.W.2d 132 (1965); Accetola v. Hood, 7 Mich.App. 83, 89, 151 N.W.2d 210 (1967); 2 Mallen & Smith, supra, § 27.10, p. 652.31 T......
-
Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Industries, Inc.
...and obvious danger" rule laid down in Fisher, supra, was not a dramatic departure from prior case law. See Nabkey v. Jack Loeks Enterprises, 376 Mich. 397, 137 N.W.2d 132 (1965) (the plaintiff was injured while jumping on a trampoline and was not entitled to recover from the owner/operator ......
- Hirych v. State