A trampoline user who won more than $740,000 in damages after breaking his foot during a Christmas Day bounce has seen his award reversed in an appeal court. 

Phillip Forostenko sued Springfree Trampoline Australia last year after suffering a “dancer’s fracture” – a fifth metatarsal break – in his right foot while at his sister’s house in 2017.  

He told Queensland Supreme Court he had been jumping on the newly installed trampoline for about a minute when a wayward bounce took him towards the edge of the mat, where his foot landed on top of a plastic cleat, causing the injury. 

The cleats are placed around the underside of the mat and form part of the ball joints that create a spring-free bounce mechanism. 

The judge in that case found the trampoline had a safety defect, noting its design was more likely to cause the kind of injury Mr Forostenko suffered and there was no appropriate warning of this risk. 

In the Queensland Appeal Court, Springfree did not challenge the findings on the safety defect but rejected the argument that Mr Forostenko suffered his injury because of it. 

It said Mr Forostenko failed to prove the “counterfactual proposition” that his injuries would have been avoided if a relevant warning was placed on the trampoline. 

In their ruling, the Appeal Court judges agree, saying: “There is no reason to infer that the plaintiff would have read, let alone modified his behaviour consequent upon reading, a warning of the nature of that which the primary judge apparently contemplated (namely a clear and visible warning at the entrance to the trampoline). 

“To the contrary, it is more likely that any such warning would have been ignored in the same way as the existing clearly visible warnings ... apparently were.” 

They say his decision to jump on his sister’s trampoline was “impulsive” and there was no suggestion he stopped to read any of the other warnings that were in place. 

The appeal judges say Mr Forostenko was a “fit and active” 41-year-old with a history of engaging in activities that involved “an element of risk”, including trampolining, skateboarding, rollerblading, skiing, dog-sledding, boxing and being towed behind a boat in an inner tube. 

“Yet in none of these activities did he suggest that he had ever read or acted upon written instructions or warnings for the recreational or household equipment which he used – including his own trampoline.” 

The judges say Mr Forostenko was not asked at the original trial to “address the counterfactual directly. And even if he had been, it would have been difficult to give such evidence much weight. In relation to the plaintiff’s evidence generally, the primary judge found that it should ‘approached with some caution ... [as] he was prone to exaggeration, particularly where he considered that may be advantageous to his claim’.” 

The original judgment was set aside and Mr Forostenko was ordered to pay Springfree Trampoline’s costs. 

See the ruling here.