Keywords: Product liability, Australian Consumer Law, safety defect, causation, negligence, Springfree Trampoline, Queensland Court of Appeal, ACL section 138, Civil Liability Act
By Honest Grace Legal | Product Liability Law | June 2025
Subject
Trampoline Injury Claim Overturned - Importance of Proving Causation in Safety Defect Cases
What Happened
On Christmas Day in 2017, Phillip Forostenko injured his foot while using a Springfree trampoline at his sister’s house. He brought a claim against the manufacturer, Springfree Trampoline Australia Pty Ltd, arguing the injury was due to a safety defect in the trampoline design. The primary judge found in his favour, awarding over $744,000 in damages pursuant to section 138 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
The initial finding turned on two considerations together, namely that a) certain features of the trampoline’s design were such that users were at an increased risk of foot injury and second, that there was no appropriate warning to users about the relevant features of the design.
On appeal, the defendant’s raised issue with respect to factual causation on the basis that he could not establish that a breach of the duty by the defendant was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm to which was sustained. There was no dispute with respect to the safety defect. The appeal was allowed.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the plaintiff’s injuries were suffered as a result of the subject defect, as required pursuant to section 11 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).
- Whether there was sufficient causal evidence to prove that a better warning would have prevented the injury.
What the Court Decided
The Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, ruling in favour of Springfree Trampoline. It held that:
- Whilst a safety defect may exist due to a lack of appropriate warnings, the plaintiff failed to prove causation — i.e., that he would not have been injured but for the lack of warning.
- The plaintiff did not read or heed any warnings already provided and was unlikely to have acted differently, even if a better warning had been present.
- Without this counterfactual proof, the claim under both the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) failed.
Key Findings
- A product may be defective due to inadequate warnings, however proof of causation is essential.
- The “but for” test must be satisfied: the plaintiff must show they would likely have acted differently if warned.
- The Court applied principles from key precedents (Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson and Ethicon Sarl v Gill) requiring plaintiffs to prove the injury was a necessary condition of the defect.
- Marketing slogans such as “no hard edges to land on” did not override the user’s responsibility to use the product safely.
Outcome
- The appeal was allowed.
- The cross-appeal by the plaintiff (over costs) was dismissed.
- The trial judgment and costs orders were set aside.
- Judgment was entered for Springfree Trampoline.
- The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of both the appeal and the original proceedings.
Why This Case Matters
This case underscores the critical role of causation in product liability claims under both Australian consumer law and civil claims for negligence. Courts will not infer liability from design risks alone—plaintiffs must prove that the specific failure to warn caused the injury. It serves as a caution to litigants and legal practitioners that:
- Failure-to-warn cases must be supported by robust factual evidence about how warnings would have changed behaviour.
- Marketing language and user conduct (like not reading existing warnings) will influence judicial reasoning.
- The decision aligns Queensland jurisprudence with federal authority and strengthens the emphasis on counterfactual analysis in consumer safety litigation.