What this appendix is, and why it exists

This is a Texas personal-injury legal reference written for the people who actually need one. Families considering whether to file suit. Reporters covering catastrophic-injury and institutional-defendant cases. Adjusters evaluating exposure on a file. Paralegals building case binders. Law students preparing for a torts seminar. And lawyers — opposing counsel, co-counsel, and our own associates — who need a single place to look up a Bluebook citation, a state-by-state waiver-enforceability rule, an FMCSA-section number, an injury-mechanism description, or a settlement-range bracket without flipping through ten different sources.

It is anchored in three real cases. Each one matters for a different reason.

The first is Bermudez v. University of Houston, filed November 21, 2025, in Harris County District Court — and as of this writing it is active litigation. According to the complaint, a transfer student named Leonel Bermudez pledged the Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu Chapter at the University of Houston in the fall of 2025. The complaint alleges that on the night of November 3, 2025, Bermudez was put through a workout regime of more than one hundred push-ups and five hundred squats while reciting the chapter creed under threat of expulsion. He was unable to stand at the end of it. He was hospitalized for four days. He was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney failure. His urine was brown. The complaint also alleges hose-spraying that the plaintiff describes as similar to waterboarding, forced consumption of milk and hot dogs and peppercorns until the pledges vomited and were then ordered to sprint, exposure to cold weather in underwear, an October 13 incident in which a separate pledge was hog-tied face-down on a table for over an hour, and a fanny-pack pledge rule that required pledges to carry a list of humiliating items at all times. On November 6, 2025 the Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters suspended the Beta Nu chapter. On November 14, 2025 the chapter members voted to surrender their charter and the chapter was permanently shut down. The University of Houston called the alleged conduct “deeply disturbing” and pledged disciplinary measures up to expulsion. The lawsuit seeks more than ten million dollars. The Manginello Law Firm represents Mr. Bermudez. Ralph Manginello told the Houston press, “We’re almost in 2026. This has to stop.” Lupe Peña told the press, “If this prevents harm to another person — let’s bring this to light. Enough is enough.” (Sources: Click2Houston; ABC13; Hoodline.) The Bermudez case is the firm’s active hazing anchor. It is referenced throughout this appendix with appropriate “alleged” framing because the litigation is open.

The second anchor is the Cosmic Jump case. In Houston in 2013, sixteen-year-old Max Menchaca went to a trampoline park called Cosmic Jump on the first day of his summer vacation. He fell approximately five feet through a torn slide onto the concrete underneath. He fractured his skull. He sustained a traumatic brain injury. He developed seizures. The park had a written single-occupancy rule that staff did not enforce. The slide had been on the park’s own inspection log for weeks before he fell through it. The Harris County jury, in a two-week trial, awarded $11,485,000 — five and a half million in compensatory damages plus six million in punitive damages. The waiver Mr. Menchaca’s family had signed did not save the park because Texas does not enforce pre-injury releases against gross negligence. As of the date of this publication, the Cosmic Jump verdict remains the largest reported jury verdict against a United States commercial trampoline park. It anchors every Texas trampoline-park-injury matter in this appendix and in our practice.

The third anchor is the BP Texas City Refinery disaster. On March 23, 2005, a hydrocarbon-vapor cloud ignited during the restart of an isomerization unit at the BP Texas City refinery. Fifteen people died. More than one hundred and seventy were injured. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s investigation produced one of the most-cited industrial-accident final reports in American regulatory history. BP paid more than two billion dollars across the resulting litigation, more than fifty million dollars in OSHA settlement penalties, fifty million dollars in federal environmental-crime fines, and fifty million dollars in Texas state environmental fines. The disaster reshaped American refinery safety regulation, including the API Recommended Practice 752 and 753 standards governing facility siting and portable-building siting that are now the litigation reference points in every refinery-blast case. Ralph Manginello represented workers in the resulting litigation. The BP Texas City matter anchors the firm’s refinery and petrochemical practice and the appendix’s industrial-injury sections.

This appendix is long because the subject is wide. It is honest because it is written from the side of the people who get hurt — and we do not pretend otherwise. Where the law is unsettled, the appendix says so. Where a defense argument is strong, the appendix says so. Where a competitor or another plaintiff’s firm originated a doctrine or won a leading verdict, the appendix credits the case and the court without linking out to that firm. Every external link in the appendix points to a government agency, a court, an industry standards body, a non-profit research organization, or canonical reporting of record. The appendix never links to another personal-injury law firm, even when citing that firm’s case. The reason is simple: this is a reference, not a directory.

The Manginello Law Firm is a Texas catastrophic-injury practice. Our headquarters office is at 1177 West Loop South, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77027. Our second Houston location is at 1635 Dunlavy Street, Houston, Texas 77006. Our Austin office is at 316 West 12th Street, Suite 311, Austin, Texas 78701. Our Beaumont presence is by appointment. We handle catastrophic personal-injury cases in every Texas metro and we handle out-of-state matters where the facts and the contingency-fee economics warrant. We are admitted in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, dual-barred in Texas and New York, and the firm carries 4.9-star average reviews across more than two hundred and fifty-one Google reviews. Our associate, Lupe Peña, spent years on the other side of the table — defending insurance carriers and recreational businesses against injury claims at a national defense firm — before switching to plaintiff’s work. She speaks Spanish natively. She is a third-generation Texan. She is one of the most effective tools the firm has against the insurance industry’s standard playbook because she wrote the playbook.

If you are a family, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We send a preservation-of-evidence letter within 24 hours of every retention. We do not charge unless we win. And if you would prefer to read in Spanish — or if your child, parent, or spouse would prefer that — Lupe is at lupe@atty911.com. Llame al 1-888-ATTY-911 y pregunte por Lupe Peña. Hablamos Español, atendemos a su familia con la dignidad que merece, y la consulta es gratis.

Volume A — Table of Authorities

Every legal authority cited anywhere in this appendix is collected here in proper citation form, with a one-paragraph holding, a current-status flag, and a cross-reference to the Volume in which the authority is discussed in depth. The Volume is organized in five sub-tables: cases, statutes, regulations, industry standards, and treatises. Every entry has a stable HTML anchor (for example, #case-cosmic-jump-houston-2013) so external pages can deep-link to a specific case.

Citations follow The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st edition, 2020). State-court intermediate-appellate decisions include the appellate district. United States Supreme Court cases use the official United States Reports citation; federal Court of Appeals cases use the Federal Reporter; federal District Court cases use the Federal Supplement; arbitration awards use the administering body’s docket number. Every reported decision either retains its precedential status, has been superseded by statute (and is so flagged), or has been abrogated (and is so flagged).

Source-quality tier markers are: HIGH for cases with full Bluebook citations, multiple confirming reporters, and contemporaneous press coverage; MEDIUM for cases with confirmed citation but incomplete public reporting; and LOW for cases mentioned in secondary sources only and pending verification.

A.1 Cases — alphabetical with Bluebook citation, holding, and current-status flag

The cases are organized alphabetically by the first-named party. Where a single case has multiple commonly-cited names (for example Alicea v. Activelaf and its companion Duhon v. Activelaf), the case is listed under each. Cross-references at the end of each entry point to the Volume that discusses the case in depth.

Alicea v. Activelaf, LLC (companion: Duhon v. Activelaf, LLC)

Alicea v. Activelaf, LLC, 2016-CC-0708, 218 So. 3d 1001 (La. Oct. 19, 2016).

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court. Year: 2016. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: Sky Zone Lafayette’s arbitration clause was held adhesionary and unenforceable because the clause was camouflaged within a longer agreement, was non-mutual, and imposed five thousand dollars in liquidated damages on any patron who filed a lawsuit instead of demanding arbitration. Sky Zone retained an unrestricted right to file suit against patrons; patrons did not retain any equivalent right against Sky Zone.

Significance: The defining trampoline-park arbitration-unconscionability case. Any trampoline-park arbitration clause containing a camouflaged-language structure, a one-sided liquidated-damages trap, or a non-mutual remedy provision is presumptively suspect under Alicea‘s reasoning. Plaintiff counsel should cite Alicea directly when any chain park moves to compel arbitration on a clickwrap waiver. Discussed in depth in Volume I.1 — Sky Zone waiver teardown.

Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp.

Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Year: 1999. Status: Trial-court decision; reasoning followed in subsequent backyard-trampoline product cases. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: The plaintiff fell from a Hedstrom-brand backyard trampoline and brought claims for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranties against Hedstrom Corporation and Bradlees Stores, the retailer. The plaintiff argued that the trampoline as designed and marketed was not reasonably safe for its intended use because a safer alternative design was available — specifically the addition of a safety enclosure or “cage” and a center marking on the jumping mat to direct users away from the springs. The retailer was held subject to product-liability claims for selling a defectively-designed consumer product.

Significance: The foundational consumer-trampoline product-liability decision in American federal court. Anderson establishes that the safer-alternative-design framework applies to backyard trampolines and that retailers are co-defendants alongside manufacturers. Discussed in depth in Volume C.2 — Trampoline manufacturers.

Beaumont Adventure Park Urban Air, LLC v. Geter

Beaumont Adventure Park Urban Air, LLC v. Geter (as Next Friend of K.G., a Minor), No. 14-23-00850-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 12, 2024).

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District (Houston). Year: 2024. Status: Good law in the Fourteenth District. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win on the arbitration question.

Holding: A non-signing minor child is bound to a parent’s signed Urban Air arbitration agreement under the doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel because the minor received the direct benefit of park access and the use of the park’s attractions through the parent’s agreement. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of arbitration as to Urban Air and compelled arbitration of the minor’s claims against the signing entity. Claims against non-signatory co-defendants — specifically Rockwood Builders, the trampoline manufacturers, and the individual owners Rachelle Nurse-Goodly and Joseph Goodly — remained in the trial court because direct-benefits estoppel does not extend to entities that were not party to the arbitration agreement.

Significance: The live Texas direct-benefits-estoppel authority in trampoline-park arbitration. Any post-2024 Urban Air case in the Houston-area appellate districts must plead carefully around Geter, typically by emphasizing claims against non-signatory defendants such as franchisors, manufacturers, sister-entity LLCs, and individual owners, on whom no estoppel argument can run. Discussed in depth in Volume I.1 — Urban Air waiver teardown and Volume E.2 — parent-arbitration authority.

BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen

BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714, 80 A.3d 345 (Md. 2013).

Court: Maryland Court of Appeals. Year: 2013. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win.

Holding: An exculpatory agreement signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child for the child’s use of a free, supervised commercial play area is not a transaction “affecting the public interest” within the meaning of Maryland’s Tunkl-style public-interest test, and is enforceable against the child’s negligence claim against the operator.

Significance: Moves Maryland into the enforce-with-carve-outs camp on parental waiver. Plaintiff counsel must distinguish paid commercial trampoline parks on the facts and pivot to gross-negligence theories or to public-interest-transaction attack vectors against any Maryland park-defendant. Discussed in depth in Volume E.1 — minor-waiver enforceability.

Bite Entertainment, LLC v. Trevino

Bite Entertainment, LLC d/b/a Urban Air South San Antonio v. Trevino (as Next Friend of J.T., a Minor), No. 04-23-00146-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024).

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District (San Antonio). Year: 2024. Status: Good law in the Fourth District. Tier: MEDIUM.

Holding: Companion to Geter. The Fourth District applied direct-benefits-estoppel reasoning to a non-signing minor’s claims against an Urban Air franchisee.

Significance: Reinforces the Geter rule across Texas appellate districts. Together with Cerna at the Texas Supreme Court level and Geter in the Fourteenth District, Trevino establishes a consistent Texas appellate posture on Urban Air arbitration enforcement that any trampoline-park case involving a minor in any Texas appellate jurisdiction must address. Discussed in depth in Volume I.1 — Urban Air waiver teardown.

Blackwell v. Sky High Sports Nashville Operations, LLC

Blackwell v. Sky High Sports Nashville Operations, LLC, 523 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2017).

Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals; review denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Year: 2017. Status: Binding Tennessee law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: Tennessee common law does not allow a parent to bind a minor child to a pre-injury liability waiver. The court further held that the California forum-selection and California choice-of-law clauses embedded in the Sky High Sports waiver were unenforceable when the injury occurred in Tennessee and the defendant entity had no California nexus sufficient to override Tennessee’s interest in adjudicating injuries to its residents.

Significance: Strikes three clauses in one opinion — the parental waiver of the minor’s claim, the forum-selection clause, and the choice-of-law clause. The forum-selection-clause holding is the broadest of the three and applies beyond the trampoline-park context to any out-of-state-headquartered defendant attempting to drag a Tennessee plaintiff into a distant forum. Discussed in depth in Volume I.1 — Sky Zone waiver teardown and Volume E.1 — minor-waiver enforceability.

Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC

Cerna, as Next Friend of R.W., v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC, No. 24-0273 (Tex. May 23, 2025).

Court: Supreme Court of Texas. Year: 2025. Status: Final and binding statewide Texas law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win.

Holding: When an Urban Air arbitration agreement contains a delegation clause assigning questions of scope, validity, and arbitrability to the arbitrator, a challenge that the arbitration agreement does not apply to a particular subsequent visit is a scope question routed to the arbitrator, not an existence question reserved to the trial court. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court and compelled arbitration on the basis of the broad delegation clause.

Significance: The most-cited Texas trampoline-park arbitration ruling of 2025. The plaintiff-side workaround is narrow but specific: any challenge to the delegation clause must be pleaded as an attack on the delegation clause itself — typically as substantively unconscionable under Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010). Litigation-conduct waiver under Coppi remains available where the park engages in substantive discovery before moving to compel. Gross-negligence claims survive arbitration regardless. Discussed in depth in Volume I.1 — Urban Air waiver teardown, Volume E.2 — parent-arbitration authority, and Volume G.3 — waiver-law evolution timeline.

Collins v. Urban Air Adventure Park (Overland Park, Kansas)

Damion Collins v. Urban Air Adventure Park (Overland Park, Kansas), American Arbitration Association Award No. 01-22-0001-5781 (Sept. 14, 2023).

Forum: American Arbitration Association. Year of award: 2023. Status: Final award. Tier: HIGH.

Award: Net $15,600,000 after a twenty-percent comparative-fault reduction (gross approximately $19.5 million). Arbitrator Thomas Bender held the signed waiver “not legally enforceable” on the basis of “systemic failure to bring necessary information to the patron, and given the recognized risk of serious injury, the failure to timely implement [safety] changes.” Forty percent of the award was apportioned against UATP Management LLC — the franchisor — separate from the franchisee operator.

Mechanism: The plaintiff, an adult, attempted a backflip on the “Wipe-Out” rotating-arm attraction at a birthday party and came down on his neck. The injury was complete cervical-level quadriplegia.

Significance: The largest reported arbitration award in commercial-trampoline-park history. The award demolishes three assumptions defense counsel routinely raise. First, that signing the waiver ends the case (it does not — the arbitrator held the waiver unenforceable). Second, that arbitration neutralizes catastrophic damages (it does not — the arbitrator awarded compensatory damages at the full evidentiary value the patron’s life-care and earnings analysis supported). Third, that the franchisor is insulated (it is not — Urban Air’s parent management entity absorbed forty percent of the gross award). Discussed in depth in Volume C.1 — Urban Air corporate footprint, Volume I.1 — Urban Air waiver teardown, and Volume F.1 — verdict trajectory.

Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co.

Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002), superseded by statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107.

Court: Colorado Supreme Court. Year: 2002. Status: Legislatively superseded. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win, then statutorily reversed.

Holding: A parent or guardian could not, prior to the 2003 statute, release a minor child’s prospective negligence claim or indemnify a tortfeasor for negligence against the child.

Significance: Originally one of the strongest minor-waiver-void rulings in the United States. The Colorado legislature responded in 2003 with Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-22-107, which expressly authorized parental waivers for prospective negligence claims arising out of a minor’s recreational activities. The doctrine remains historically important and is being re-examined by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2024 in the ski-resort context. Plaintiff counsel in Colorado now lead with gross-negligence theories and with the incorporation of ASTM F2970 into 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1101-12. Discussed in depth in Volume E.1.

Coppi v. Family Adventures North Jersey, LLC d/b/a Urban Air

Coppi v. Family Adventures North Jersey, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park, A-3083-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2025).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2025. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: A defendant’s substantial litigation conduct — engaging in substantive discovery and contesting the merits in court before moving to compel arbitration — waives the defendant’s right to compel arbitration even when the underlying clause is unambiguous and otherwise enforceable. The court refused Urban Air’s late-stage motion to compel.

Significance: One of the most powerful plaintiff-side procedural tools in the 2025 toolkit. Plaintiff counsel in New Jersey and other litigation-conduct-waiver states should pursue aggressive discovery from the moment of filing — depositions of corporate representatives, subpoenas to third parties, and requests for production directed at the franchisor. The defendant must elect early between litigation and arbitration; the longer the defendant participates in the litigation forum without moving to compel, the stronger the waiver argument. Discussed in depth in Volume H.1 — discovery playbook and Volume I.1 — Urban Air waiver teardown.

Cosmic Jump (Houston) — Max Menchaca verdict

Menchaca v. Cosmic Jump, Harris County District Court (Tex. 2013 injury; verdict approximately 2018–2019). Reported through contemporaneous Houston-press coverage; verdict and litigation history widely cited as the largest reported jury verdict against a United States commercial trampoline park as of this publication.

Court: Harris County District Court (Houston, Texas). Year of injury: 2013. Year of verdict: approximately 2018–2019. Status: Final, with the largest-reported designation. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Verdict: $11,485,000, comprising approximately $5,485,000 in compensatory damages and $6,000,000 in punitive damages.

Mechanism: A sixteen-year-old plaintiff fell approximately five feet through a torn slide onto the concrete underneath at the Cosmic Jump trampoline-park location in northwest Harris County on the first day of his summer vacation. The slide had been on the park’s own inspection log for weeks before the fall. The plaintiff fractured his skull and developed seizures and a traumatic brain injury.

Significance: The largest reported jury verdict against a United States commercial trampoline park. The Harris County jury found the park grossly negligent under the Texas standard articulated in Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994), defeating the signed pre-injury waiver because Texas does not enforce releases against gross negligence. The case is screened against in every Houston-metro trampoline-park investigation in this firm’s practice: actual prior knowledge of the defect plus failure to remediate plus injury equals gross negligence equals waiver-defeated. Discussed in depth in Volume C.1 — Cosmic Air corporate footprint, Volume D.1 — TBI taxonomy, Volume F.1 — verdict trajectory, and Volume I.1 — waiver teardown.

Flight Deck Trampoline Park (Fort Worth) — minor plaintiff demand

Flight Deck Trampoline Park (Fort Worth, Texas) — minor plaintiff lawsuit filed by Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner of Houston. Filing seeks one million dollars in damages.

Court: Tarrant County District Court [verify]. Year of injury: April 7, 2017. Status: Active or settled [verify]. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: A four-year-old boy was injured when other jumpers were allowed onto the same trampoline despite the park’s posted single-occupancy rule. The child sustained Salter-Harris growth-plate fractures of both his right tibia and fibula. He must see an orthopedic specialist every six months until he turns eighteen and is permanently prohibited from playing sports.

Significance: The Texas growth-plate-fracture anchor case in commercial-trampoline-park litigation. The doctrinal punch is the rule-on-paper-but-not-enforced pattern: the park’s posted single-occupancy rule was an admission that multiple jumpers on one trampoline pose a known and foreseeable risk. The park’s failure to enforce its own rule converts ordinary negligence into a textbook gross-negligence-grade claim because the park already acknowledged the danger. Discussed in depth in Volume D.1 — Salter-Harris taxonomy and Volume B.2 — Salter-Harris glossary entry.

Galloway v. State (Iowa)

Galloway v. State, No. 08-0776, 790 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa Nov. 5, 2010).

Court: Iowa Supreme Court. Year: 2010. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: Pre-injury releases executed by a parent purporting to waive personal-injury claims of a minor child violate Iowa public policy and are unenforceable.

Significance: The public-policy holding sweeps across school field trips, commercial recreational facilities, sports leagues, and any context in which a minor might be injured. Iowa is in the plaintiff-friendly tier under Volume E.1.

Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park

Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park, 468 N.J. Super. 17, 254 A.3d 1271 (App. Div. May 12, 2021).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2021. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: A non-parent, non-guardian, non-attorney-in-fact lacks actual or apparent authority to bind another family’s minor child to a Sky Zone waiver or arbitration clause at a birthday party.

Significance: Closes the “birthday-party host signed for everyone” loophole that trampoline parks had relied on for years. Only the child’s own parent or legal guardian may bind the minor, and even then — under Hojnowski — only as to forum, not as to the substantive tort claim. Discussed in depth in Volume E.2 — parent-arbitration authority.

Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp.

Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314 (Conn. 2005).

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court. Year: 2005. Status: Good law and controlling Connecticut authority. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: Recreational waivers presented as adhesion contracts to the public for a fee, where the operator controls the hazards, are unenforceable as against Connecticut public policy — even when the waiver explicitly purports to release negligence.

Significance: The reach extends beyond the snowtubing facts of Hanks. Trampoline-park waivers in Connecticut are presumptively void because every public-fee recreational facility falls within the rule. Connecticut is a top-tier plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction under Volume E.1.

Hawkins v. Peart

Hawkins v. Peart, 37 P.3d 1062 (Utah 2001).

Court: Utah Supreme Court. Year: 2001. Status: Good law and reaffirmed since. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: Both parental pre-injury liability waivers and parental indemnity provisions on behalf of a minor child are invalid in Utah. The validity of the release does not turn on whether it was signed before or after the injury; either form of pre-injury waiver is unenforceable.

Significance: The Utah indemnity holding is the broadest in American jurisprudence. Hawkins bars not only the headline waiver but also the indemnification provision that trampoline parks, gyms, and ski resorts use to shift the financial burden of an injury back to the child’s family. Cite Hawkins when attacking any indemnification clause that purports to make the parent liable for damages awarded to the parent’s own injured child. Discussed in depth in Volume I.5 — the universal indemnification trap.

Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park

Hojnowski ex rel. Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 901 A.2d 381 (N.J. 2006).

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court. Year: 2006. Status: Good law and controlling New Jersey authority. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Mixed.

Holding: A parent may bind a minor child to an arbitration (forum-selection) clause but may not bind the minor child to a pre-injury release of prospective tort claims at a commercial recreational facility. The court grounded its rule in the parens patriae obligation of the courts to protect minors and on the public-policy principle that commercial entities providing the activity must bear the cost of safe operation rather than shift it to families.

Significance: The seminal New Jersey rule that controls every New Jersey trampoline-park waiver case to follow. Hojnowski draws a sharp distinction between forum (arbitration is permissible because the substantive claim is not extinguished, only redirected) and substance (a release of the underlying tort claim is not permissible because it would extinguish the child’s right to recover). Plaintiff counsel in New Jersey routinely accepts the arbitration-forum result and litigates the substantive tort in arbitration with full recovery available. Discussed in depth in Volume E.1 and Volume E.2.

Johnson v. Sky Zone Indoor Trampoline Park in Springfield

Johnson v. Sky Zone Indoor Trampoline Park in Springfield, A-2489-20 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2021).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2021. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win on the arbitration question.

Holding: Permitting arbitration of a minor’s claims is consistent with New Jersey case law on the enforceability of arbitration agreements affecting children’s rights, where the parent signed the agreement.

Significance: Confirms the post-Hojnowski rule that the parent can compel arbitration of the minor’s claim (forum) even though the parent cannot waive the substantive tort claim. In New Jersey the arbitration clause usually sticks if the parent signed.

Kirton v. Fields

Kirton v. Fields, 997 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2008), superseded in part by statute, Fla. Stat. § 744.301 (2010 amendment).

Court: Florida Supreme Court. Year: 2008. Status: Superseded in part by statute. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win, partially statutorily reversed.

Holding: A parent has no authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child for the child’s participation in a commercial activity.

Significance: The Florida legislature responded with the 2010 amendment to Florida Statutes § 744.301, which now permits a parent to waive an “inherent risk” claim on behalf of a minor child. The amendment did not authorize a parent to waive a negligence claim. The plaintiff-side workaround in Florida is therefore narrow but powerful: reframe the injury as resulting from the operator’s own negligence, not from an inherent risk of the activity. This is a fact-development question that the Florida courts have repeatedly held is reserved to the trier of fact. Discussed in depth in Volume E.1.

Lawrence v. Sky Zone, LLC

Lawrence v. Sky Zone, LLC, A-3092-19 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2021).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2021. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win.

Holding: The unavailability of JAMS as the named arbitrator does not defeat a Sky Zone arbitration clause. The New Jersey Arbitration Act and the Federal Arbitration Act both contain court-appointment provisions that fill the gap when the named arbitrator is unable or unwilling to administer the dispute.

Significance: Closes the “named-arbitrator-unavailable” attack vector in New Jersey, relying on Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, 244 N.J. 119 (2020).

Richardson v. Sky Zone, LLC

Richardson v. Sky Zone, LLC, A-3833-19 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Apr. 8, 2021).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2021. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win.

Holding: Same as Lawrence. JAMS unavailability does not render Sky Zone’s arbitration clause unenforceable; New Jersey law and the Federal Arbitration Act permit court appointment of an arbitrator.

Significance: Companion to Lawrence. Together Lawrence and Richardson solidify the New Jersey rule that the JAMS-unavailability attack does not work on Sky Zone’s standard agreement.

Perez v. Sky Zone, LLC

Perez v. Sky Zone, LLC, (Union Cty. L-3464-20) (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2022).

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Year: 2022. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Mixed.

Holding: An adult patron can be compelled to arbitrate his claim against the signing entity, but claims against non-signatory co-defendants — manufacturers, franchisors, insurers, and individual owners — stay in court pending arbitration of the signing-party claim.

Significance: Confirms a critical plaintiff-side strategy: name non-signing upstream defendants separately to preserve jury-trial venue against deeper pockets. The Perez rule is the New Jersey analog of the Geter non-signatory carve-out in Texas. Discussed in depth in Volume H.1 — discovery playbook.

Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park & Shultz v. Sky Zone (Pa. 2025)

Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC & Shultz v. Sky Zone, LLC, Nos. 24-EAP-2023 & 25-EAP-2023 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2025) (consolidated).

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Year: 2025. Status: Final and binding statewide Pennsylvania law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: A parent lacks authority to bind a minor child to an arbitration agreement. A signing parent cannot bind a non-signing spouse to an arbitration agreement merely by virtue of the marital relationship.

Significance: The 2025 Pennsylvania landmark and the doctrinal opposite of the Texas Cerna ruling decided two weeks earlier. The two cases together illustrate the depth of the modern jurisdictional split. Pennsylvania is now firmly in the plaintiff-friendly tier; the underlying waiver-of-liability and assumption-of-risk content of trampoline-park agreements is not automatically invalidated, but the embedded arbitration clause is unenforceable against minors and against non-signing spouses. Discussed in depth in Volume E.2 and Volume G.3 — waiver-law evolution timeline.

Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort

Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wash. 2d 484, 834 P.2d 6 (Wash. 1992).

Court: Washington Supreme Court. Year: 1992. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: A parent may not bind a minor child to a pre-injury exculpatory agreement waiving the child’s future cause of action for negligence; such waivers violate Washington public policy.

Significance: The reasoning is one of the cleanest in American jurisprudence — Washington law requires court approval for a parent to settle a child’s claim after injury, so it would be illogical to permit a parent’s broader pre-injury waiver authority with no court oversight whatsoever. The same reasoning is borrowed by plaintiff counsel in unsettled-law states to argue against parental waiver by analogy.

Seitz v. AirMaxx Trampoline Park

Anthony Seitz v. AirMaxx Trampoline Park (St. Cloud, Minnesota). $3,000,000 mediation settlement following an August 2015 cervical spinal-cord injury.

Forum: Mediation; venue Minnesota state court. Year: 2015 injury; settlement followed. Status: Settled. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: An adult father jumped into a foam pit and landed at an angle that fractured his cervical spine. He was paralyzed. The plaintiff developed evidence of repeated prior foam-pit injuries at AirMaxx and of a failure-to-implement-IATP-standards pattern at the facility.

Significance: The cervical-paralysis Minnesota anchor and one of the most important “prior incident knowledge” factual records in trampoline-park litigation. The combination of voluntary-IATP-standard nonconformance and documented prior injuries creates a foreseeability foundation that waiver clauses are routinely held unable to defeat. Discussed in depth in Volume D.1 — spinal-cord injury taxonomy.

Torres v. House of Air, LLC

Torres v. House of Air, LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) [verify exact reporter citation].

Court: California Court of Appeal. Year: 2016. Status: Good law for adult-plaintiff ordinary-negligence claims. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Park win.

Holding: A clear, unambiguous, and explicit Release and Assumption of Risk constitutes a complete defense to ordinary negligence claims by an adult patron at a commercial trampoline park.

Significance: California is a “clear-waiver-enforced” jurisdiction for adult patrons asserting only ordinary negligence. The plaintiff-side attack vectors in California are narrow but specific: gross negligence under City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747 (2007); unconscionability where the waiver was not actually read or understood; the public-interest exception under Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California, 60 Cal. 2d 92 (1963); minor-plaintiff cases on a separate doctrinal theory; and the emerging Spanish-language clickwrap-comprehension unconscionability angle for non-English-primary signers, anchored in part in Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) and its analogues.

Woodman v. Kera LLC

Woodman ex rel. Woodman v. Kera LLC, 486 Mich. 228, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010), statutorily limited as to nonprofit youth-recreation activities, Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5109.

Court: Michigan Supreme Court. Year: 2010. Status: Good law for commercial trampoline parks; nonprofit-recreation carve-out by 2011 statute. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Holding: A pre-injury liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of a child is unenforceable under Michigan common law because a parent lacks authority to waive a child’s rights or claims against a third party.

Significance: The Michigan legislature responded in 2011 with Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5109, but the carve-out is narrow — it covers only nonprofit youth-recreational activities. Commercial trampoline parks remain governed by Woodman and the parental-waiver bar applies. Discussed in depth in Volume E.1.

Knight v. trampoline park (Georgia) — $3.5M jury verdict

Mathew Knight v. Georgia trampoline park (counsel: Taylor, Warren, Weidner, Hancock & Barnes). $3,500,000 Georgia jury verdict after a three-day trial and a forty-five-minute deliberation.

Court: Georgia state court [verify county]. Year: Reported approximately 2023 [verify]. Tier: HIGH. Outcome: Plaintiff win.

Mechanism: An adult contractor was instructed by a park staff member to jump from a walkway onto an inclined trampoline. He landed badly and sustained an open tibia/fibula fracture, developed deep-vein thrombosis, and was declared disabled.

Significance: The case is a textbook surveillance-spoliation example. The park’s four overhead cameras all “glitched” at the precise moment of the injury. The trial court instructed the jury on adverse inference, and the jury returned the $3.5M verdict in under an hour. Cite Knight when seeking adverse-inference jury instructions in any spoliation-tinged trampoline-park case. Discussed in depth in Volume H.4 — spoliation playbook.

Vogt v. Rebounderz of Edison

Emil Vogt v. Rebounderz of Edison; Yeglinski Enterprises (franchisee); and Rebounderz Franchise (counsel: Greenberg Minasian, NJ). $1,250,000 settlement following an August 25, 2020 injury.

Forum: New Jersey state court. Year of injury: 2020. Status: Settled. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: An adult truck driver’s feet became lodged between exposed springs at a Rebounderz facility, causing bilateral catastrophic leg fractures.

Significance: The exposed-springs known-hazard New Jersey precedent. The plaintiff developed evidence that the park had prior knowledge of spring-pad-coverage defects. The “the park knew” foreseeability record defeats assumption-of-risk and is the doctrinal model for any spring-pad defect or design-flaw case.

Bermudez v. University of Houston (Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu)

Bermudez v. University of Houston, Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, Beta Nu Chapter, et al., Harris County District Court (Tex. filed Nov. 21, 2025).

Court: Harris County District Court (Houston, Texas). Year filed: 2025. Status: Active litigation as of the publication date of this appendix; allegations described herein are the plaintiff’s allegations as pleaded and have not been adjudicated. Tier: HIGH. Counsel for plaintiff: Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña, The Manginello Law Firm.

Allegations: The plaintiff is a transfer student who pledged the Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu Chapter at the University of Houston in the fall of 2025. The complaint alleges hazing conduct including a fanny-pack pledge rule requiring pledges to carry a list of humiliating items at all times, dress-code enforcement, hours-long mandatory study/work blocks, weekly interviews under threat of expulsion, overnight chauffeur duties, sprints and bear crawls and wheelbarrow races and “save-your-brother” drills, cold-weather exposure in underwear, lying in vomit-soaked grass, hose-spraying that the plaintiff describes as “similar to waterboarding” and threats of actual waterboarding, forced consumption of milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns until the pledges vomited, immediate sprints after vomiting, a November 3, 2025 workout consisting of more than 100 push-ups and 500 squats while reciting the chapter creed under threat of expulsion (which left the plaintiff unable to stand), an October 13, 2025 incident in which a separate pledge was allegedly hog-tied face-down on a table for over an hour, and dawn and late-night workouts at Yellowstone Boulevard Park in Houston that allegedly caused at least one pledge to lose consciousness. The plaintiff was hospitalized for four days. The complaint pleads diagnoses of rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney failure, brown urine consistent with rhabdomyolysis, critically high creatine-kinase laboratory findings, and ongoing risk of permanent kidney damage. The lawsuit seeks damages exceeding ten million dollars.

Defendants named: the University of Houston; the University of Houston System Board of Regents; Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, Inc. (national headquarters); Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu housing corporation; thirteen individual fraternity leaders and members including the chapter president, the pledgemaster, the sorority-relations chair, and the risk manager.

Institutional response: On November 6, 2025, Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters suspended the Beta Nu chapter. On November 14, 2025, the chapter members voted to surrender the charter; the chapter was permanently shut down. The University of Houston issued a public statement calling the alleged conduct “deeply disturbing” and committed to disciplinary measures up to expulsion and to cooperation with law enforcement.

Significance: The firm’s active hazing anchor, and the most-detailed Texas hazing complaint of 2025. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6 — educational institutions, Volume D.1 — rhabdomyolysis taxonomy, Volume E.6 — Texas hazing-statute strength, and Volume G.5 — Bermudez chronology. Press coverage: Click2Houston; ABC13; Hoodline.

Piazza v. Beta Theta Pi (Penn State)

Civil litigation arising from the death of Timothy J. Piazza at the Beta Theta Pi chapter at Pennsylvania State University on February 4, 2017. Settlements reported in excess of $110 million across multiple defendants. Pennsylvania criminal proceedings; the resulting Pennsylvania state legislation is the Tim Piazza Antihazing Law (2018).

Mechanism: The decedent was a sophomore pledge who participated in the chapter’s “gauntlet” pledge ritual, drank a documented quantity of alcohol over a short period, fell down a flight of stairs, was not transported to a hospital for approximately twelve hours, and died of traumatic brain injury and abdominal hemorrhage.

Significance: Reshaped American hazing law. The Pennsylvania legislative response — the Tim Piazza Antihazing Law — increased the criminal penalties for hazing and added an “aggravated hazing” felony charge. The civil settlements remain the largest reported in modern fraternity-hazing litigation. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6 and Volume F.6 — national hazing record.

Foltz v. Pi Kappa Alpha (Bowling Green State University)

Civil litigation arising from the death of Stone Foltz at the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter at Bowling Green State University in March 2021. The Ohio legislative response is Andrew’s Law / Collin’s Law (Ohio 2021).

Mechanism: The decedent died of acute alcohol intoxication after a “big-little” night on which pledges were allegedly required to consume a fifth of liquor. He was twenty years old.

Significance: Anchor for Ohio hazing-statute strength. Discussed in depth in Volume E.6.

Gruver v. Phi Delta Theta (LSU)

Civil litigation arising from the death of Maxwell Raymond Gruver at the Phi Delta Theta chapter at Louisiana State University on September 14, 2017. The Louisiana legislative response is the Max Gruver Act (Louisiana 2018).

Mechanism: The decedent died of acute alcohol intoxication and aspiration during a pledge ritual called “Bible study,” in which pledges were required to drink whenever they answered a question about the fraternity wrong.

Significance: Anchor for Louisiana hazing-statute strength and a model for the modern felony-tier hazing-criminal-statute reforms. Discussed in depth in Volume E.6 and Volume F.6.

Coffey v. Pi Kappa Phi (Florida State University)

Civil litigation arising from the death of Andrew Coffey at the Pi Kappa Phi chapter at Florida State University on November 3, 2017.

Mechanism: The decedent died of acute alcohol intoxication after a “Big Brother Night” pledge ritual.

Significance: Florida hazing-criminal anchor. Pi Kappa Phi as a national organization has documented multiple fatal hazing incidents — including Coffey, Adrian Heideman (Chico State, 2000), and the active Bermudez UH allegations — making the national organization a frequently-named defendant in Pi Kappa Phi chapter litigation under negligent-supervision and franchisor-liability theories. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6.

Deng v. Pi Delta Psi (Baruch College)

Civil and criminal litigation arising from the death of Chun Hsien “Michael” Deng at a Pi Delta Psi pledge retreat in the Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania, on December 8, 2013, while he was a Baruch College student.

Mechanism: The decedent was subjected to a pledge ritual called “the gauntlet” or “glass ceiling,” in which blindfolded pledges were tackled by chapter members. He sustained massive head injuries and died after delayed medical care.

Significance: The Pi Delta Psi national organization was criminally convicted of involuntary manslaughter, hindering apprehension, and hazing — one of the very few American fraternal organizations to face criminal organizational liability. Cite Deng when arguing for criminal-conduct evidence in civil hazing matters and for the national-organization-as-defendant theory. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6.

Champion v. Florida A&M University (FAMU Marching 100)

Civil and criminal litigation arising from the death of Robert D. Champion Jr., a drum major in the Florida A&M University Marching 100 band, on November 19, 2011.

Mechanism: The decedent died after participating in a marching-band hazing ritual called “Crossing Bus C,” in which pledges were required to walk the length of a charter bus while being beaten.

Significance: The leading non-Greek-letter hazing case in American litigation. Champion establishes that hazing liability extends beyond fraternities and sororities to athletic teams, marching bands, ROTC, military academies, and any organization that conducts initiation rituals. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6.

Furek v. University of Delaware

Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991).

Court: Delaware Supreme Court. Year: 1991. Status: Foundational. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A university owes a duty of care to its students to protect them against foreseeable acts of hazing by recognized fraternal organizations on the university’s campus, where the university has actual or constructive notice of a pattern of hazing conduct.

Significance: The foundational university-supervisory-duty case for American hazing litigation. Cite Furek against any university defendant when the institution’s prior knowledge of hazing conduct is in evidence. Discussed in depth in Volume C.6.

Knoll v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska

Knoll v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska, 258 Neb. 1, 601 N.W.2d 757 (Neb. 1999).

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court. Year: 1999. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A university may be liable for the foreseeable criminal conduct of third parties (including fraternity members) directed at its students, where the university had actual notice of similar prior conduct and failed to take reasonable preventive measures.

Significance: Companion to Furek. The two cases together provide the doctrinal foundation for the modern university-as-defendant claim in fraternity-hazing litigation.

Werner Enterprises ($1B Florida verdict)

2021 Florida jury verdict against Werner Enterprises — $1 billion ($100 million compensatory plus $900 million punitive) for the wrongful death of an eighteen-year-old. Reported through contemporaneous Florida-press coverage. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: A chain-reaction crash on a Florida interstate. Plaintiff’s evidence developed gross negligence in the carrier’s hiring practices.

Significance: The largest reported United States trucking-industry verdict. The case is the universal industry-trend reference in plaintiff trucking practice and the most-cited example in any nuclear-verdict-trajectory analysis. Discussed in depth in Volume F.3 — trucking nuclear-verdict data.

Werner Enterprises ($150M Texas settlement)

2022 Texas settlement of $150 million paid by Werner Enterprises to the family of two children killed in an I-30 crash. Reported as the largest 18-wheeler settlement in United States history. Tier: HIGH.

Significance: The Texas-anchor commercial-trucking settlement of the modern era and the cornerstone reference for any I-30 / I-20 / I-10 / I-45 corridor case in Texas state court. Discussed in depth in Volume C.4 — Werner corporate footprint and Volume F.3.

Ramsey v. Landstar Ranger

Ramsey v. Landstar Ranger — 2021 Florida $730,000,000 verdict ($480 million compensatory, $250 million punitive) for the death of a seventy-three-year-old plaintiff struck during the haul of a Navy propeller oversize load. Tier: HIGH.

Significance: The leading oversize-load liability case. Demonstrates broker / carrier dual-track exposure in commercial trucking litigation and the exposure of major motor carriers and brokers to nine- and ten-figure verdicts. Discussed in depth in Volume C.4 — Landstar corporate footprint.

Wabash National $462M (St. Louis underride)

2024 Missouri $462,000,000 verdict against Wabash National for a trailer-design defect resulting in two underride decapitations.

Significance: The leading trailer-manufacturer underride-guard product-liability verdict. Cite this case in any rear-impact underride matter and in any underride-guard standard-of-care argument. Reinforces the legislative push behind the proposed federal STOP Underrides Act.

Washington v. Top Auto Express

2020 $411,000,000 verdict for a motorcyclist injured in a 45-vehicle pileup involving Top Auto Express.

Significance: Cascading-liability anchor for multi-vehicle commercial-trucking pileup cases. Discussed in depth in Volume F.3.

Street v. Daimler

2024 Alabama $160,000,000 rollover verdict ($75 million compensatory plus $75 million punitive) against Daimler.

Significance: A rare Alabama plaintiff verdict overcoming the state’s contributory-negligence rule. Cite when arguing manufacturer liability in any commercial-vehicle-rollover quadriplegia case.

Morgan v. Walmart Transportation (Tracy Morgan settlement)

2014 Tracy Morgan v. Walmart Transportation — confidential settlement reported in the range of $90 million. The decedent in the same crash, comedian James McNair, was killed; co-plaintiff Tracy Morgan was severely injured.

Mechanism: A Walmart truck driver, Kevin Roper, had been awake approximately twenty-eight hours when he rear-ended the plaintiffs’ van on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Significance: The case made driver fatigue and Hours-of-Service compliance a national issue and triggered the modern era of plaintiff scrutiny of carrier scheduling pressure. Discussed in depth in Volume C.4 — Walmart Transportation and Volume H.1 — discovery playbook.

Thomasson v. SkyPark (Phoenix) — Arizona “Ty’s Law” anchor

The death of Ty Thomasson at SkyPark Indoor Trampoline Park in Phoenix, Arizona on February 2, 2012. No civil suit; the decedent’s mother led the legislative push behind Arizona House Bill 2179, known as “Ty’s Law” (codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 5-1101 et seq.). Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: A thirty-year-old back-flipped into a foam pit measuring two feet eight inches deep and broke five cervical vertebrae.

Significance: The first state-level commercial-trampoline-park regulatory regime in the United States. Subsequent ABC15 Phoenix and Arizona Republic investigations have documented systemic non-compliance — fewer than twenty Arizona parks were registered with the state at last reporting, and only eleven were confirmed registered. The regulatory gap is the basis for the appendix’s recurring observation that statutory regulation is not a substitute for civil litigation. Discussed in depth in Volume F.2 — pediatric trampoline-injury data.

Swezey (Virginia trampoline-park death, 2017)

The death of Ric Swezey, an adult gymnast and stuntman, at a Virginia trampoline park in 2017. Civil suit status uncertain. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: The decedent stumbled while jumping, struck his head on a lightly-padded wall, cracked his C2 vertebra, and died within three minutes.

Significance: The case stands for the proposition that even an adult athletic professional cannot anticipate or self-rescue from a wall-padding-coverage defect. Cite this case when arguing standard-of-care issues around perimeter wall padding under ASTM F2970-25.

Riddle v. Urban Air Port St. Lucie (December 2025)

The December 2025 death of six-year-old Emma Riddle at the Urban Air Trampoline & Adventure Park in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The park closed pending state and federal investigations; the family is reported to be preparing legal action. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: A two-person electric go-kart “surged forward” without accelerator input and crashed into a wall. The child died the next day.

Significance: The leading 2025 wrongful-death case involving an Urban Air go-kart attraction and a documented mechanical-failure record. Investigators have noted approximately $270,000 in unpaid rent and $83,000 in unpaid tax from the franchisee operator, raising successor-liability and franchisee-insolvency questions for any future plaintiff seeking recovery. Discussed in depth in Volume C.1 — Urban Air corporate footprint.

Duran v. Rockin’ Jump Merced (April 2023)

The April 13, 2023 collapse and subsequent April 17, 2023 death of ten-year-old Anthony Duran at the Rockin’ Jump Trampoline Park in Merced, California. Approximately thirty-five witnesses; matter referred to the Merced County District Attorney; no confirmed civil action on the public record as of this publication. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: The child was involved in a brief physical altercation with another juvenile during a basketball game at the park, then collapsed. A medical-cause-of-death determination may bear on whether the case proceeds as an inter-patron negligence claim or as a negligent-security / failure-to-supervise claim against the park.

Significance: The leading inter-patron / inter-child-altercation trampoline-park-fatality case on the public record. Demonstrates the second-order liability theory that runs against parks for failure to staff inter-patron-conflict response.

Lu v. Altitude Gastonia (2019)

Wrongful-death litigation arising from the death of twelve-year-old Matthew Lu at Altitude Gastonia (Altitude Trampoline Park franchise), Gastonia, North Carolina, in 2019. Filed in Gaston County Superior Court against Altitude Gastonia, ATP Alpha, and Ropes Courses Inc. Settlement amount not publicly disclosed. Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: The child fell more than twenty feet onto concrete from a climbing-wall attraction at the facility. The plaintiff’s evidence was that the park’s staff failed to properly secure the harness fall-protection system before the child began the climb. The park subsequently issued a public statement acknowledging “human error” and removed the climbing wall.

Significance: The pre-litigation public admission of “human error” became the single most important fact in plaintiff’s case-development. Cite when developing admission-against-interest evidence in any pre-litigation defendant statement.

Summit Adventure Park Spring Hill ($680,656 Tampa verdict)

Tampa-area minor v. Summit Adventure Park Spring Hill — Tampa jury verdict of $680,656 (more than $500,000 in pain and suffering) for an eleven-year-old plaintiff (counsel: Viñas & DeLuca, PLLC). Tier: HIGH.

Mechanism: The boy sustained a comminuted spiral fracture of the femur from a “Wipeout Arm” rotating-beam attraction.

Significance: The leading verifiable verdict involving a rotating-beam / spinning-arm attraction. Summit Adventure Park’s Charleston, South Carolina franchisee was separately the subject of a January 2023 United States Department of Labor child-labor enforcement action, demonstrating the chain’s documented operational-noncompliance pattern. Discussed in depth in Volume C.1.

Get Air Pennsylvania ($412,445 verdict)

Unnamed minor v. Get Air trampoline park (outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) — $412,445 jury verdict for a seven-year-old boy. Tier: MEDIUM.

Mechanism: Avulsion fracture of the posterior cruciate ligament of the left knee, requiring surgical reconstruction. The plaintiff’s evidence developed monitor-to-jumper-ratio failures against ASTM F2970-25 and inadequate platform-to-trampoline transition supervision.

Significance: A model PCL-injury verdict and one of the cleanest ASTM-monitor-ratio-attack records on the public file. Discussed in depth in Volume D.1 — PCL injury taxonomy.

Kansas trampoline park (September 2025) — $1M policy-limits settlement

September 4, 2025 Kansas trampoline-park policy-limits settlement of $1,000,000 paid by the carrier on behalf of a confidential venue.

Mechanism: An adult female sustained a comminuted compound pilon fracture of the distal tibia and fibula caused by an unstable trampoline bed. Significance: Equipment-instability / maintenance-failure case that exhausted the primary $1 million general-liability tower. Discussed in depth in Volume D.1 — pilon fracture taxonomy.

BP Texas City Refinery (March 23, 2005)

The BP Texas City Refinery Disaster — a March 23, 2005 hydrocarbon-vapor-cloud ignition during isomerization-unit restart that killed fifteen people and injured more than one hundred and seventy. Civil litigation 2005 to 2010 and beyond. BP paid more than two billion dollars across the resulting civil litigation, $87.4 million in OSHA settlement penalties (2009) plus $21.3 million earlier (combined $50.6 million net settled), $50 million in federal environmental-crime fines, and $50 million in Texas state environmental fines. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s final investigation report (also available as the CSB final-report PDF) is among the most-cited federal industrial-accident final reports in American regulatory history.

Significance: The defining modern American refinery disaster. The Manginello Law Firm represented workers in the resulting litigation. The disaster reshaped American refinery safety regulation and produced the API Recommended Practice 752 (4th edition, January 2024) facility-siting standard and the API Recommended Practice 753 (2nd edition, January 2024) portable-building-siting standard. Discussed in depth in Volume C.3 — Texas Gulf Coast refinery defendants, Volume G.4 — refinery chronology, and Volume F.4 — refinery fatality data.

Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel

Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994).

Court: Supreme Court of Texas. Year: 1994. Status: Foundational Texas authority on gross negligence. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: Gross negligence in Texas requires both (1) an objective component — that the act or omission, viewed objectively from the actor’s standpoint, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (2) a subjective component — that the actor had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

Significance: The controlling Texas gross-negligence standard. Every Texas-venue case in this appendix that involves a waiver, an arbitration clause, a damages cap, or an exemplary-damages claim is decided against the Moriel framework. Cite Moriel when developing the actual-prior-knowledge record that defeats a pre-injury waiver under Texas public policy and unlocks exemplary damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 41. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — gross negligence glossary entry.

G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.

G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1929, holding approved).

Court: Texas Commission of Appeals (holding approved). Year: 1929. Status: Foundational Texas insurance authority. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: An insurer that controls the defense of a covered claim has a duty to exercise the same degree of care and diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in the management of his or her own business in evaluating a settlement demand within the policy limits. An insurer that unreasonably refuses to accept a within-limits demand and exposes the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits is liable to the insured for the entire excess judgment.

Significance: The Stowers doctrine is the single most-leveraged Texas insurance-law principle in modern personal-injury practice. A properly-prepared Stowers demand letter — demanding settlement within the policy limits, supported by evidence of liability and damages, with a defined response deadline — converts the carrier’s own self-interest into a settlement engine, because the carrier risks liability for any excess judgment if it refuses a reasonable within-limits demand. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — Stowers demand glossary entry.

Haygood v. De Escobedo

Haygood v. De Escobedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011).

Court: Supreme Court of Texas. Year: 2011. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: In a Texas personal-injury case, a plaintiff’s recovery for past medical expenses is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant, after the application of contractual or statutory adjustments — not the higher amount originally billed by the medical provider.

Significance: Reshaped Texas medical-damages presentation at trial. Modern Texas plaintiff counsel develops parallel evidence of full billed amounts (admissible for purposes of medical necessity and reasonableness) and paid amounts (the Haygood recoverable). Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — paid-or-incurred glossary entry.

Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California

Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California, 60 Cal. 2d 92, 383 P.2d 441 (Cal. 1963).

Court: Supreme Court of California. Year: 1963. Status: Foundational. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: An exculpatory contract is invalid as against public policy where the transaction “exhibits some or all” of six characteristics: (1) the business is suitable for public regulation; (2) the party seeking exculpation performs a service of great importance to the public; (3) the party holds itself out as willing to perform the service for any member of the public seeking it; (4) the party has a decisive bargaining advantage; (5) the contract is presented as an adhesion contract; and (6) the customer is placed under the control of the party furnishing the service.

Significance: The Tunkl public-interest test is the single most-cited recreational-waiver analytical framework in American jurisprudence. Plaintiff counsel attacking any commercial-recreational waiver should plead the six factors specifically and develop record evidence on each. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — Tunkl-test glossary entry.

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 2010. Status: Controlling federal authority. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A delegation clause within an arbitration agreement — assigning questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator — is itself an antecedent agreement to arbitrate, and challenges to the delegation clause must be directed at the delegation clause specifically, not at the arbitration agreement as a whole.

Significance: The federal-law foundation for the Texas Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air. Cite Rent-A-Center as the basis for any plaintiff-side challenge to a delegation clause; the challenge must be specific, evidence-based, and directed at the delegation clause’s own enforceability rather than at the agreement as a whole.

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc.

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 244 N.J. 119, 236 A.3d 990 (N.J. 2020).

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court. Year: 2020. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: The unavailability of a contractually-named arbitrator does not defeat the parties’ agreement to arbitrate where state law and the Federal Arbitration Act provide a court-appointment mechanism.

Significance: Anchored the New Jersey trampoline-park-arbitration cases Lawrence and Richardson against the JAMS-unavailability attack vector. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — JAMS-unavailability glossary entry.

Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. v. Valenzuela

Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.).

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District (El Paso). Year: 2013. Status: Good law in the Eighth District. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A trial court was justified in denying enforcement of an arbitration agreement where the employer did not provide a Spanish translation of the agreement, the employee lacked English literacy, and the formation circumstances did not support a finding that the employee knowingly assented.

Significance: The leading Texas authority for bilingual-formation challenges to arbitration and waiver agreements. Plaintiff counsel handling Spanish-primary clients in any commercial-recreational, employment, or services context should develop a Delfingen-grade formation-defect record. Particularly powerful in El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, and the Coastal Bend, where the bilingual demographic is dominant. Discussed in depth in Volume I.2 — recreational-activity waivers.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 1993. Status: Controlling federal authority; adopted by Texas in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995). Tier: HIGH.

Holding: Federal trial courts must act as gatekeepers of expert testimony, evaluating whether the proffered expert’s methodology is scientifically reliable and whether the methodology fits the facts of the case. The factors include testability, peer review and publication, known error rate, general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, and the existence of standards controlling the technique’s operation.

Significance: Every catastrophic-injury case in this appendix requires Daubert-grade expert presentation. Discussed in depth in Volume H.5 — expert-witness category map.

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 1995. Status: Controlling federal maritime authority. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A Jones Act seaman is one whose duties contribute to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and who has a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of vessels) that is substantial in both duration and nature. As a rule of thumb, an employee whose work for the vessel constitutes less than approximately thirty percent of his time will not qualify as a seaman.

Significance: The controlling test for Jones Act seaman status. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — Jones Act seaman glossary entry.

McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander

McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 1991. Status: Good law and foundational. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: A Jones Act seaman need not aid in the navigation of a vessel; it is enough that the employee’s duties contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. The historical “aid in navigation” test was rejected.

Significance: Together with Chandris, defines the modern Jones Act seaman framework. Cite when establishing seaman status for an offshore-oilfield worker, an oil-rig roustabout, a tugboat crew member, a barge worker, or a fishing-vessel crew member.

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 1990. Status: Good law. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: In a general-maritime-law wrongful-death action by a non-seafarer’s family, recovery is limited to pecuniary damages; non-pecuniary damages such as loss of society are not available. The case established the principle of uniformity between Jones Act and general-maritime-law remedies.

Significance: Controls the maritime damages model in any Jones Act / general-maritime wrongful-death case. Plaintiff counsel must distinguish carefully between pecuniary recovery (lost wages, lost support, funeral expenses, conscious pain and suffering of the decedent before death) and non-pecuniary recovery (loss of society, mental anguish), because the categories receive sharply different treatment depending on the maritime cause of action.

The Dutra Group v. Batterton

The Dutra Group v. Batterton, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Year: 2019. Status: Controlling federal maritime authority. Tier: HIGH.

Holding: Punitive damages are not recoverable in a general-maritime-law unseaworthiness action. The decision narrowed the punitive-damages recovery available to seamen in the unseaworthiness context.

Significance: Important boundary on Jones Act / unseaworthiness damages model. Plaintiff counsel must layer punitive-damage theory carefully — punitive damages remain available in maintenance-and-cure claims under Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), but not in unseaworthiness.

A.2 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

The federal and state statutory authorities cited throughout this appendix are collected here in citation order, federal first, then Texas, then alphabetical by state for non-Texas citations. Every statute that has been amended is dated to its current operative version. Statutes that have been repealed but remain controlling for past-conduct cases are flagged.

Federal Arbitration Act — 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16

The Federal Arbitration Act governs the enforceability of arbitration agreements in transactions involving interstate commerce. Section 2 provides that a written arbitration provision “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Cited in every trampoline-park, gym, water-park, ski-resort, and recreational-facility arbitration case in this appendix. Statutory text: U.S. Code via uscode.house.gov; archive: govinfo.gov.

Jones Act — 46 U.S.C. § 30104

The Jones Act provides a seaman injured in the course of his or her employment with a cause of action for negligence against the seaman’s employer. The Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and provides for a featherweight causation standard (“any part, however slight”). Statutory text: uscode.house.gov. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — Jones Act glossary entry.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act — 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq.

The LHWCA provides federal workers’-compensation coverage for longshore workers, harbor workers, and certain other maritime employees who are not seamen. The LHWCA is the alternative-coverage scheme to the Jones Act and turns on the worker’s status (seaman versus longshoreman). Cited in every maritime injury matter in which Jones Act seaman status is contested.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act — 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq.

The OCSLA extends United States federal law to the outer continental shelf for purposes of regulating the exploration and development of subsea natural resources. The statute incorporates the law of the adjacent state as surrogate federal law for purposes of operation of OCS facilities. The OCSLA matters in offshore-oilfield personal-injury litigation because it determines which body of substantive law applies to a worker’s injury on a fixed platform versus a moving vessel.

Death on the High Seas Act — 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301 et seq.

DOHSA provides a remedy for the wrongful death of a person occurring on the high seas more than three nautical miles from the shore of any state. The statute is significant because its damages model is restricted (pecuniary loss only) and the venue and choice-of-law rules differ from state-court wrongful-death actions.

FMCSA enabling statute — 49 U.S.C. § 31136

49 U.S.C. § 31136 directs the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations on commercial-motor-vehicle safety. The Secretary’s regulations are codified at 49 C.F.R. Parts 350–399 and constitute the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (the FMCSRs). Every commercial-trucking case in this appendix turns in some respect on the FMCSRs. Statutory text via Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Stop Campus Hazing Act of 2024

The Stop Campus Hazing Act of 2024 is a federal statute signed into law on December 23, 2024. It amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to add hazing-incident reporting to the existing campus-safety reporting framework formerly known as the Clery Act. As of the 2024 amendment, the Clery Act is officially renamed the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act. Discussed in depth in Volume C.7 — Clery and Title IX framework.

Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act — 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)

The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act (formerly the Clery Act) requires postsecondary institutions participating in federal financial-aid programs to disclose information about campus crime, security policies, and (after the Stop Campus Hazing Act of 2024) hazing incidents in an Annual Security Report. The Clery Center maintains an authoritative public reference at clerycenter.org. Federal Student Aid maintains the institution-specific Clery reports at studentaid.gov.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 — 20 U.S.C. § 1681

Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX is a parallel cause of action in hazing matters that involve sexual assault, sex-based harassment, or gender-based exclusion. The Department of Education’s Title IX hub is at ed.gov; athletic-program treatment is at ed.gov Title IX & Athletics.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.001 (minor-tolling)

Section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code tolls the statute of limitations for any cause of action accruing during the legal disability of minority. The Texas statute of limitations on personal-injury claims (two years under § 16.003) does not begin to run against a minor’s claim until the minor turns eighteen. Texas statutory text: statutes.capitol.texas.gov.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.003 (two-year SOL)

Section 16.003 establishes a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury, conversion, and trespass claims in Texas. The two-year period runs from the date of injury, subject to discovery-rule, fraudulent-concealment, and minor-tolling exceptions. Cited in every Texas-venue personal-injury matter in this appendix.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 33 (proportionate responsibility)

Chapter 33 governs Texas comparative-fault apportionment. Texas applies modified comparative responsibility with a fifty-one-percent bar — a plaintiff whose proportionate responsibility is fifty-one percent or greater is barred from recovery. A plaintiff with proportionate responsibility of fifty percent or less recovers, with damages reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage. The chapter also defines “responsible third party” — a non-party against whom percentage of responsibility may be allocated. Discussed in depth in Volume E.5 — comparative-fault rules.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 41 (exemplary damages)

Chapter 41 governs exemplary-damages recovery in Texas. Section 41.001 defines gross negligence, malice, and fraud as the predicates for exemplary recovery. Section 41.008 caps exemplary damages at the greater of (a) two times economic damages plus an amount equal to noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000, or (b) $200,000. The cap does not apply to certain enumerated felonies. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — exemplary-damages glossary entry.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 71.002 (wrongful death)

Section 71.002 creates a Texas wrongful-death action for the surviving spouse, children, and parents of a decedent. The action lies for the benefit of those statutory beneficiaries; siblings and other relatives are not entitled to wrongful-death recovery in Texas absent statutory amendment.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 71.021 (survival)

Section 71.021 creates a Texas survival action — the cause of action that the decedent could have brought during life, asserted by the personal representative of the estate after the decedent’s death. The survival recovery includes the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering before death plus any other damages the decedent could have recovered.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 95 (premises owner / contractor)

Chapter 95 governs the liability of a property owner to a contractor or to a contractor’s employee for injuries arising out of the work. The chapter requires the plaintiff to prove that the property owner exercised or retained some control over the manner in which the work was performed, and had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the injury. Significant in construction-injury and refinery-contractor cases.

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 101 (Texas Tort Claims Act)

Chapter 101 is the Texas Tort Claims Act — a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for state and local government entities. The cap is $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for state liability, and $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for local-government-entity liability, with limited categories of recoverable claims. Significant in every case involving a Texas state or local government defendant.

Texas Family Code § 153.073 (signer authority)

Section 153.073 provides each conservator or possessory-conservator parent the right to make decisions concerning the child’s welfare and to designate the child’s primary residence. The provision is cited in trampoline-park waiver cases involving non-parent signers — for example, where a grandparent, an aunt, or a family friend signed the kiosk waiver at check-in instead of a parent. Cite when developing a Gayles-type non-parent-signer attack on the waiver in Texas.

Texas Education Code Chapter 37, Subchapter F — §§ 37.151 through 37.157 (hazing)

Subchapter F of Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code is the Texas anti-hazing statute. Section 37.151 defines “hazing”; section 37.152 makes hazing a criminal offense; section 37.153 imposes vicarious liability on organizations that condone or sanction hazing; section 37.154 establishes immunity for those who report hazing in good faith; sections 37.155 through 37.157 govern penalties, civil remedies, and defenses. Statutory text: statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Discussed in depth in Volume E.6 — hazing-statute strength.

Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2151 (amusement rides)

Chapter 2151 of the Texas Occupations Code regulates amusement rides in Texas. The Texas Department of Insurance maintains the Class B amusement-ride database that covers bungee trampolines, Sky Rider zip-coasters, inflatable obstacle courses, and other attractions inside trampoline parks. Significant in any Texas trampoline-park case involving a non-trampoline attraction.

Pennsylvania — Tim Piazza Antihazing Law (2018)

The 2018 Pennsylvania amendment to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2802 et seq., named for Timothy Piazza of Penn State Beta Theta Pi. Increased the criminal penalties for hazing, added an “aggravated hazing” felony charge, and created an organizational liability provision. Discussed in depth in Volume E.6.

Louisiana — Max Gruver Act (2018)

The 2018 Louisiana hazing statute, codified at La. Rev. Stat. §§ 17:1801 et seq., named for Maxwell Gruver of LSU Phi Delta Theta. Established a felony-tier hazing offense and added organizational and institutional liability provisions.

Ohio — Andrew’s Law / Collin’s Law (2021)

The Ohio Collin’s Law (2021), enacted in part in response to the death of Stone Foltz, increased Ohio hazing penalties and added a felony-tier offense for hazing involving the forced consumption of alcohol or drugs.

Florida — Chad Meredith Act

The Florida Chad Meredith Act increased Florida criminal penalties for hazing involving serious bodily injury. Codified at Fla. Stat. § 1006.63.

Florida Statutes § 744.301 (parental waiver)

Florida Statutes § 744.301, as amended in 2010 in response to Kirton v. Fields, permits a parent or natural guardian to release a minor child’s claim for an “inherent risk” of an activity, but does not authorize a parent to waive a negligence claim against the operator.

Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-22-107 (parental waiver)

Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-22-107, enacted in 2003 in response to Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., authorizes a parent to waive a minor’s prospective negligence claim arising out of the minor’s participation in a recreational activity.

Michigan Compiled Laws § 700.5109 (parental waiver — nonprofit)

Michigan Compiled Laws § 700.5109, enacted in 2011 in response to Woodman v. Kera, authorizes a parent to waive a minor’s claim only for nonprofit youth-recreational activities. Commercial trampoline parks remain governed by Woodman.

New York General Obligations Law § 5-326

NY GOL § 5-326 voids exculpatory clauses in agreements with public-amusement and gymnasium-type recreational facilities that operate for compensation. Treats trampoline parks as public-amusement facilities, rendering most park waivers void in New York.

A.3 Administrative Regulations

Federal regulations are cited in CFR form with subject and current operative version. State regulations follow.

49 C.F.R. Parts 350–399 (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations)

The umbrella federal-motor-carrier-safety regulatory framework. Parts most-cited in commercial-trucking litigation: Part 382 — controlled-substances and alcohol testing, including pre-employment, random (currently 50% drug / 10% alcohol annual rates), post-accident, reasonable-suspicion, return-to-duty, and follow-up testing (eCFR); Part 383 — CDL standards, including endorsements H, N, P, S, T, X; Part 385 — safety fitness and out-of-service criteria; Part 387 — minimum financial responsibility ($750,000 general; $1,000,000 oil/equipment; $5,000,000 hazmat; $5,000,000 for sixteen-or-more-passenger carriers; $1,500,000 for fewer-than-sixteen-passenger carriers); Part 390 — general applicability; Part 391 — driver-qualification standards including age, medical, and ELDT (entry-level driver training) requirements; Part 392 — driving of commercial motor vehicles, including § 392.3 (ill or fatigued operators), § 392.4 (drug prohibition), § 392.5 (alcohol prohibition; 0.04 BAC trigger versus 0.08 motorist standard), § 392.6 (schedule of runs — carriers cannot schedule runs requiring legal-limit-exceeding speeds), § 392.11 (following too closely), § 392.80 (texting prohibition), § 392.82 (mobile-phone prohibition); Part 393 — parts and accessories; Part 395 — Hours of Service (the most-violated trucking-regulation set), including § 395.3(a) (eleven-hour driving limit, fourteen-hour on-duty window, thirty-minute break after eight cumulative driving hours, sixty-or-seventy-hour weekly limit, thirty-four-hour restart) and § 395.8 (Records of Duty Status / ELD; mandatory since December 18, 2017; eCFR Part 395); Part 396 — inspection, repair, and maintenance (DVIR; pre-trip and post-trip inspection); Part 397 — hazardous-materials transportation. Discussed in depth in Volume C.4 — commercial trucking carriers and Volume H.1 — discovery playbook.

49 C.F.R. Part 40 (DOT Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing)

The DOT-wide drug-and-alcohol-testing regulation. Establishes specimen collection, laboratory analysis, medical-review-officer protocols, and result-reporting procedures applicable to all DOT-covered transportation employees, including commercial-vehicle operators, FAA-regulated personnel, USCG-regulated mariners, and FRA-regulated rail workers. Records of positive test results are retained for five years; negative results for one year. Significant in every post-incident drug-test spoliation matter.

29 C.F.R. Part 1910 (OSHA General Industry)

The OSHA general-industry standard. Most-cited subparts in refinery and petrochemical-plant litigation: Subpart B (lockout/tagout, § 1910.147); Subpart H (hazardous materials, including § 1910.119 process-safety management); Subpart I (personal protective equipment); Subpart S (electrical); Subpart Z (toxic and hazardous substances).

29 C.F.R. Part 1926 (OSHA Construction)

The OSHA construction-industry standard. Subparts of greatest litigation significance: Subpart C (general safety); Subpart M (fall protection); Subpart P (excavations); Subpart V (electric-utility construction); Subpart X (stairways and ladders); Subpart CC (cranes and derricks).

CPSC Section 15(b) (Substantial Product Hazard Reporting)

Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b), requires manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission within twenty-four hours of obtaining information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to comply with a safety rule, contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. Reporting guidance: CPSC Duty to Report; filing portal: CPSC Section 15(b) filing; policy statement: CPSC policy. Significant in trampoline-manufacturer recall cases (Hedstrom, Jumpking, Skywalker, Sportspower, Super Jumper, JumpSport, SEGMART) and in any consumer-product personal-injury claim where a recall has been issued or should have been issued.

USCG Marine Casualty Reports — 46 C.F.R. Part 4

The United States Coast Guard’s marine-casualty-reporting regulation. Vessel owners and operators must report serious marine casualties to the USCG. The resulting investigation files are publicly available through the USCG Marine Casualty Reports portal and the USCG accident-reports hub. Critical in every Jones Act seaman-injury matter.

7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1101-12 (Colorado trampoline-park standards)

Colorado’s regulatory incorporation of ASTM F2970-25 by reference into the state amusement-ride code. Cited in Colorado trampoline-park cases.

A.4 Industry Standards

Industry standards are non-statutory but litigation-decisive. A consensus voluntary standard establishes the standard of care in the relevant industry and frames every defendant’s conduct in expert testimony. The standards below are organized by industry.

ASTM F2970-25 (current edition) — Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, Installation, Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Major Modification of Trampoline Courts

The current edition of the ASTM trampoline-court consensus standard, published by ASTM International. F2970-25 governs design, manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, and major modification of commercial trampoline courts. Operational requirements include monitor-to-jumper-ratio guidance (industry best practice approximately 1:32), foam-pit depth and density specifications, spring-pad-coverage rules, enclosure specifications, daily / monthly / annual inspection regimes, incident-log retention, and operator-training requirements. The standard is incorporated by reference into the law of Arizona, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Colorado. Reference page: astm.org/f2970-25.html; store: store.astm.org/f2970-25.html. Note: prior editions F2970-22, F2970-15, and F2970-13 are archived; cite the current edition unless the conduct at issue predates publication. Discussed in depth in Volume C.2 — trampoline manufacturers and Volume F.7 — Rule Vacuum Index.

IATP — International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association certifications

The International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association, through its Amusement Adventure Institute, offers three voluntary industry certifications: the Court Monitor Certification (history, roles, emergency action plans; approximately $25 per person); the International Certified Operator (approximately $249 IATP-member / $375 non-member; fewer than several hundred US completions reported); and the Trampoline Court Inspector Level 1 (TCI-1), based on F2970. IATP membership covers approximately 400 of the approximately 1,100 global commercial trampoline parks; fewer than fifty percent of US commercial parks are IATP members. The voluntary nature of IATP standards is the central data point in plaintiff-side staff-training discovery: a non-member park is not a per-se violator, but a member park whose staff is not certified is presumptively below the industry’s own self-defined standard of care. Discussed in depth in Volume C.1.

API RP 752 (4th edition, January 2024) — Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Permanent Buildings

The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 752, fourth edition, January 2024. Governs the siting of permanent buildings at process plants — the regulatory descendant of the BP Texas City siting failures. Reference: api.org RP 752; fourth-edition announcement: api.org RP 752 announcement. Cited in every Texas Gulf Coast refinery siting case in this appendix. Discussed in depth in Volume C.3 — refinery defendants and Volume G.4 — refinery chronology.

API RP 753 (2nd edition, January 2024) — Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Portable Buildings

The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 753, second edition, January 2024. Governs the siting of portable buildings (trailers, modular units) at process plants. Companion to RP 752. The portable-building question was central to the BP Texas City fatalities, where deaths concentrated in occupied portable trailers near the isomerization unit. Second-edition announcement: api.org RP 753 announcement.

API RP 754 — Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries

API Recommended Practice 754 establishes the Tier 1 / Tier 2 / Tier 3 / Tier 4 process-safety-event reporting framework adopted across the modern American refining and petrochemical industry. Significant in any refinery case involving prior process-safety incidents.

CVSA North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Out-of-Service Criteria. Establishes the conditions under which a commercial motor vehicle, driver, or load must be placed out of service following a roadside inspection. Out-of-service findings are independent negligence evidence in any post-crash litigation.

Smith System (commercial-driver behavioral training)

The Smith System Five Keys to Space Cushion Driving — Aim High in Steering, Get the Big Picture, Keep Your Eyes Moving, Leave Yourself an Out, and Make Sure They See You. The most widely adopted commercial-driver-behavioral-training program in American motor-carrier practice. Walmart Transportation, FedEx, UPS, and many major carriers reference Smith System training in driver-qualification files. Significant in any commercial-trucking driver-training discovery production.

ASTM F1487 (Public Playground Equipment for Public Use)

The companion ASTM consensus standard for public playgrounds. Cited in any premises-liability matter involving playground equipment and in any case where a trampoline-park defendant raises an “industry doesn’t regulate this” defense — F1487 demonstrates that the industry does in fact regulate analogous public-use equipment.

BSI PAS 5000:2017 (UK trampoline-park standard)

The British Standards Institution Publicly Available Specification 5000:2017 — the United Kingdom’s trampoline-park consensus standard. PAS 5000 expressly addresses several risk areas that ASTM F2970-25 leaves to operator discretion, including drawstring and clothing inspection at entry. Cited in plaintiff-side comparative-standards arguments demonstrating that other developed economies have adopted more protective standards than the United States.

A.5 Treatises and Restatements

Treatise authority is cited where black-letter doctrine is at issue, where a court has cited the treatise in a controlling decision, or where the treatise is the standard reference for an industry-specific area of practice.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (special relations giving rise to duty)

Section 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts establishes that certain special relationships — common carrier and passenger; innkeeper and guest; possessor of land who holds it open to the public and member of the public; one who voluntarily takes custody of another — give rise to a duty to take reasonable action for the protection of the other party against unreasonable risk of physical harm. Cited in every trampoline-park, ski-resort, gym, water-park, and recreational-facility case for the proposition that an operator who holds its premises open to the public for a fee owes its patrons an affirmative duty of protection. Discussed in depth in Volume B.1 — special relationship glossary entry.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (negligent performance of undertaking)

Section 323 establishes that one who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which the actor should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things is subject to liability for failure to exercise reasonable care to perform the undertaking, if the failure increases the risk of harm or if the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance on the undertaking.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (liability to third persons for negligent performance)

Section 324A extends the section 323 framework to third-party liability — one who undertakes to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person is subject to liability to the third person for failure to exercise reasonable care, where (a) the failure increases the risk of harm, (b) the actor undertook to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance.

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability is the modern statement of American product-liability doctrine. Section 2 sets out the manufacturing-defect, design-defect (with risk-utility framework and reasonable-alternative-design requirement), and warning-defect categories. Cited in every consumer-trampoline-product case in this appendix and in every commercial-vehicle-component-defect case.

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability

The modern statement of comparative-fault and joint-and-several-liability doctrine. Provides analytical framework for proportionate-responsibility regimes including Texas CPRC Chapter 33.

Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th edition)

The leading American tort-law treatise. Cited where a black-letter doctrinal issue requires authoritative non-Restatement treatise support.

Dobbs, The Law of Torts (3d edition)

The modern alternative to Prosser & Keeton. Cited where Dobbs’s analysis of an emerging doctrinal issue is more current than the Restatement.

Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law

The leading American admiralty / maritime law treatise. Cited in every Jones Act, LHWCA, OCSLA, and DOHSA matter for black-letter doctrine.

Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries (4th edition)

The standard reference on maritime personal-injury practice. Cited in every Jones Act seaman-status, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure matter.

Volume B — Glossary (Tripartite, Bilingual)

The glossary is in three parts: legal terms (B.1), medical and injury terms (B.2), and industry, safety-standard, and regulatory terms (B.3). Every legal and medical entry includes the Spanish equivalent. The Spanish translation is positioned to support bilingual reading, not to translate the entire entry — for full Spanish-language consultation in any of the practice areas, contact lupe@atty911.com directly. Para una consulta completa en español, comuníquese con la abogada Lupe Peña al 1-888-ATTY-911 o por correo electrónico a lupe@atty911.com. La consulta es gratis.

Definition lists are used (HTML <dl> with <dt> term and <dd> definition) so the structure is machine-readable and search-engine-friendly. Each term has a stable HTML anchor for cross-linking.

B.1 Legal Terms — English with Spanish Equivalents

Actual Knowledge / Conocimiento Real

Subjective awareness on the part of a defendant of a particular fact. The Texas gross-negligence standard articulated in Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel requires actual subjective awareness of an extreme risk. In trampoline-park litigation, actual knowledge is typically established by prior incident reports, internal inspection logs (the Cosmic Jump torn-slide log), corporate training documents (the Sky Zone “BE AWARE OF THE PADS” manual), and admissions made by employees in pre-litigation interviews.

Adhesion Contract / Contrato de Adhesión

A standardized “take-it-or-leave-it” contract drafted by a party with overwhelming bargaining power and presented to a consumer who has no realistic ability to negotiate the terms. The kiosk waiver presented to a parent at a trampoline-park check-in is a textbook adhesion contract. Adhesion is one factor in the Tunkl public-interest test and is independently relevant to procedural-unconscionability analysis.

Admiralty Jurisdiction / Jurisdicción Marítima

Federal jurisdiction over maritime torts and contracts under U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Admiralty jurisdiction attaches to a tort occurring on navigable waters that bears a substantial connection to traditional maritime activity. Cited in every Jones Act and unseaworthiness matter to establish the federal forum and the application of general maritime law.

Adverse Inference / Inferencia Adversa

An evidentiary instruction permitting the trier of fact to infer that destroyed or unproduced evidence would have been unfavorable to the party that destroyed or failed to produce it. The Knight Georgia $3.5M verdict is the leading example — the park’s four overhead cameras “glitched” at the moment of injury and the jury was instructed it could infer the missing footage was harmful to the defense. Discussed in depth at spoliation.

Amputation Claim / Reclamo por Amputación

A personal-injury claim arising from the surgical or traumatic loss of a limb or extremity. In Texas catastrophic-injury practice, amputation claims are valued in light of prosthetic costs, lifetime rehabilitation, vocational impairment, phantom-limb pain, and disfigurement; The Manginello Law Firm has documented amputation settlements in the $1.945M to $8.63M range. Discussed in depth at Volume B.2 — amputation.

Apparent Agency / Agencia Aparente

The doctrine that holds a principal liable for the acts of an apparent agent where the principal’s manifestations would lead a reasonable person to believe the agent is authorized to act on the principal’s behalf. Cited against franchisor defendants — Sky Zone, Urban Air, Altitude — when uniformed staff, branded marketing, unified websites, and shared safety videos lead a patron to believe the local park is operated directly by the national brand. The leading framework appears in Miller v. McDonald’s Corp. and analogous franchisor-vicarious-liability decisions across the United States.

Arbitration / Arbitraje

An alternative-dispute-resolution forum in which a private arbitrator (or panel) decides a dispute outside the public court system, typically pursuant to a pre-injury agreement. Trampoline-park, gym, ski-resort, and rideshare contracts routinely contain arbitration provisions. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, governs the enforceability of arbitration agreements in interstate commerce. The 2025 jurisdictional split (Texas Cerna versus Pennsylvania Santiago/Shultz) defines the modern minor-arbitration landscape.

Assumption of the Risk / Asunción del Riesgo

A defense doctrine asserting that a plaintiff who voluntarily encountered a known and obvious risk cannot recover for resulting injury. Texas largely abolished the express-assumption-of-the-risk defense in Farley v. M M Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. 1975), folding it into proportionate-responsibility analysis under CPRC Chapter 33. Trampoline-park assumption-of-risk arguments now routinely fail when the plaintiff develops evidence that the operator’s “systemic failure to bring necessary information to the patron” prevented an informed assumption — the express finding in the Collins arbitration.

Attractive Nuisance / Atracción Peligrosa

The doctrine that a possessor of land owes a duty of reasonable care to a child trespasser when the land contains an artificial condition the possessor knows or should know is likely to attract children, the possessor knows or should know creates an unreasonable risk of injury, the children because of their youth do not realize the risk, the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition is slight compared to the risk, and the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger. Texas applies the doctrine under Banker v. McLaughlin, 208 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1948). Significant in backyard-trampoline cases involving child trespassers.

Bailment / Depósito

The legal relationship that arises when a party entrusts personal property to another for a specific purpose. Coat-check and locker arrangements at trampoline parks, water parks, and gyms can give rise to bailment claims when entrusted property is lost or stolen.

Battery / Agresión

An intentional, unconsented harmful or offensive contact with another person. In hazing matters, individual fraternity members who physically attacked the pledge can be named as battery defendants. Battery is an intentional tort and survives most insurance-policy “intentional acts” exclusions only as to negligent supervision claims against the institution; the individual attackers themselves typically face uncovered personal liability.

Bermuda Triangle of insurance — primary, excess, umbrella / El Triángulo del Seguro

Informal industry shorthand for the three-layer commercial insurance structure: a primary policy (typically $1M / $2M aggregate), an excess policy that drops down once the primary is exhausted (typical layer $5M / $10M / $25M), and an umbrella policy that may sit above both. In refinery, maritime, and large commercial-trucking cases the layered insurance “Bermuda Triangle” can total tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in available coverage. Discussed in depth in Volume F.8 — insurance-coverage patterns.

Bluebook citation / Citación Bluebook

The standard American legal-citation format prescribed by The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Every case in Volume A of this appendix is presented in Bluebook form. The Bluebook governs citations in nearly every American court above the trial level and is the convention used in The Manginello Law Firm’s briefs.

Breach of Implied Warranty / Incumplimiento de Garantía Implícita

A products-liability theory that the seller of goods impliedly warranted that the goods were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purpose for which goods of that kind are used (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.314). Cited in Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp. alongside negligence and strict-liability theories.

But-For Causation / Causa Sine Qua Non

The traditional cause-in-fact standard: the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s wrongful conduct. The Jones Act applies a substantially weaker featherweight-causation standard (“any part, however slight”), making the Jones Act the plaintiff-friendliest causation regime in American law for the seaman who can establish status under Chandris v. Latsis.

Causation / Causalidad

The element of every tort claim requiring proof that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s injury. Texas requires both cause-in-fact (substantial-factor or but-for) and proximate cause (foreseeability). The Jones Act applies a featherweight standard. Maritime general-law negligence applies traditional but-for causation.

Class Action / Demanda Colectiva

A representative-plaintiff action filed on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons, governed in federal court by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Sky Zone New Jersey class-action settlement (Locks Law Firm) is the leading trampoline-park class settlement, attacking the waiver itself as overly broad and securing a prospective injunction against further use of the offending language.

Class Action Waiver / Renuncia a Demanda Colectiva

A contractual provision purporting to bar a consumer from joining a class-action lawsuit and requiring individual-basis dispute resolution. Trampoline-park waivers (Sky Zone, Urban Air, Altitude) routinely contain class-action waivers. Plaintiff-side counter-attack: argue the class-action waiver is severable poison-pill that, if struck, voids the entire arbitration agreement, returning the dispute to court.

Clery Act (Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act) / Ley Clery

The federal campus-safety reporting statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f). As of December 23, 2024, officially renamed the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act under the Stop Campus Hazing Act, which added hazing-incident reporting to the existing framework. See A.2 — Clery Act for full citation.

Closing Argument / Alegato de Conclusión

The summation a lawyer presents to the jury at the conclusion of evidence in a trial. The closing argument is the moment a catastrophic-injury case is most often won or lost; The Manginello Law Firm prepares closing arguments throughout the case-development process, not at the end.

Comparative Fault / Culpa Comparativa

The doctrine that apportions a plaintiff’s recovery according to the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff. Texas applies modified comparative responsibility under CPRC Chapter 33 with a fifty-one-percent bar. Pure-comparative states permit recovery even at ninety-nine-percent fault. Contributory-negligence states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, plus the District of Columbia) bar all recovery for any plaintiff fault.

Conscious Pain and Suffering / Dolor y Sufrimiento Consciente

The decedent’s awareness of injury and pain between the moment of injury and the moment of death. A separate and distinct survival-action damage element under CPRC § 71.021, recoverable in addition to wrongful-death damages payable to statutory beneficiaries.

Contingency Fee / Honorarios por Contingencia

A fee arrangement in which the attorney is paid only out of any recovery obtained for the client, expressed as a percentage of the recovery. The Manginello Law Firm charges thirty-three and one-third percent (33.33%) of recovery if the matter resolves before trial and forty percent (40%) of recovery if the matter is tried. The consultation is free, and the client owes no attorney’s fee if there is no recovery.

Contributory Negligence / Negligencia Contribuyente

The all-or-nothing common-law rule under which any plaintiff fault, however small, bars all recovery. Survives only in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Texas abandoned contributory negligence in favor of proportionate responsibility under CPRC Chapter 33.

CPSC Section 15(b) Reporting / Notificación CPSC § 15(b)

The federal duty to report substantial product hazards to the Consumer Product Safety Commission within twenty-four hours. See A.3 — CPSC § 15(b) for full citation.

Cross-Claim / Contrademanda Cruzada

A claim filed by one defendant against another defendant in the same lawsuit, typically for indemnity or contribution. Common in trampoline-park cases where the franchisee files a cross-claim against the franchisor, the equipment manufacturer, or the property owner.

Custodian of Records Affidavit / Declaración Jurada del Custodio de Registros

The sworn affidavit of a records custodian authenticating documents for trial admission. Often the most efficient way to admit medical bills, employment records, and incident reports into evidence without calling each provider as a live witness. Tex. R. Evid. 902(10).

Daubert Challenge / Impugnación Daubert

A pretrial motion to exclude expert testimony on the ground that the proposed expert’s methodology fails the federal reliability test of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Texas applies a substantively identical test under E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995). Plaintiff counsel must prepare every expert disclosure to survive a Daubert/Robinson challenge.

Defective Design / Diseño Defectuoso

A products-liability theory that the manufacturer designed the product in a way that rendered it not reasonably safe for its intended use, and that a reasonable alternative design was available. The framework appears in Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(b) and was applied in Anderson v. Hedstrom to backyard trampolines.

Demand Letter / Carta de Reclamación

A pre-suit written demand for payment, identifying the injury, the liability theory, the available evidence, and the demanded amount. In Texas, a properly framed demand letter under the Stowers doctrine creates a duty on the carrier to evaluate the demand reasonably; an unreasonable refusal of a within-limits demand exposes the insurer to liability for any excess judgment. Discussed at Stowers demand.

Deposition / Declaración Bajo Juramento

The pre-trial sworn testimony of a witness, taken before a court reporter and (typically) opposing counsel. In Texas state practice, governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 199 through 203; in federal practice, by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Depositions are the primary evidence-development tool in catastrophic-injury cases.

Direct-Benefits Estoppel / Estoppel por Beneficios Directos

The doctrine that binds a non-signing claimant to an arbitration agreement where the claimant received direct benefits flowing from the agreement (for example, park access through the parent’s signed waiver). Texas applied direct-benefits estoppel against a non-signing minor in Beaumont Adventure Park v. Geter (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024) and reinforced the rule in Bite Entertainment v. Trevino (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024). The non-signatory carve-out preserves jury-trial venue against franchisors, manufacturers, and individual owners.

Discovery / Descubrimiento de Pruebas

The pre-trial phase of litigation in which the parties exchange documents, take depositions, propound interrogatories, request admissions, and inspect evidence. Discussed in depth in Volume H — Discovery and Case-Development Playbook.

Discovery Rule / Regla del Descubrimiento

The rule that tolls a statute of limitations until the plaintiff knew or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of both the injury and the wrongful act that caused it. Texas applies the discovery rule narrowly and case-by-case under Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998).

Dram Shop Liability / Responsabilidad de Taberna

The civil liability of an alcohol provider that serves alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person who later causes injury. Texas dram-shop liability is governed by Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02. Highly significant in fraternity-hazing cases involving alcohol service and in trampoline-park or amusement-park cases that include in-house bar service.

Duty of Care / Deber de Cuidado

The legal obligation owed by one person to another to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm. The first element of every negligence claim. Special-relationship duties under Restatement (Second) § 314A apply to trampoline parks, gyms, and other public-fee recreational facilities.

Duty to Defend / Deber de Defender

An insurer’s contractual duty to provide a defense to its insured against a covered claim, broader than the duty to indemnify. Texas applies the eight-corners rule — the duty to defend is determined by comparing the four corners of the petition with the four corners of the policy. Significant in trampoline-park CGL coverage disputes such as the Great American Assurance v. Sky Zone declaratory action and the Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Altitude Trampoline participant-injury exclusion case.

Eggshell-Plaintiff Doctrine / Doctrina del Demandante de Cáscara de Huevo

The rule that a tortfeasor takes the plaintiff as the tortfeasor finds the plaintiff. A pre-existing condition that makes the plaintiff more vulnerable to injury does not reduce the defendant’s liability. Critical in cervical-spine, traumatic-brain-injury, and pediatric-growth-plate cases where the defense routinely argues a pre-existing predisposition.

Erie Doctrine / Doctrina Erie

The federal-court doctrine, from Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), that a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Significant in every federal-court Texas-tort case, including trampoline-park diversity matters and product-liability actions removed from state court.

Exemplary (Punitive) Damages / Daños Ejemplares (Punitivos)

Damages awarded to punish a defendant for malicious, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct, beyond compensatory damages. Texas exemplary damages are governed by CPRC Chapter 41 and capped at the greater of (a) two times economic damages plus an amount equal to noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000, or (b) $200,000. The Cosmic Jump $11.485M verdict included $6,000,000 in punitive damages — well within the Texas cap given the case’s economic-damage component.

Failure to Warn / Falta de Advertencia

A products-liability theory that the manufacturer or seller failed to provide warnings or instructions necessary to make the product safe. The framework appears in Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(c). Sky Zone’s internal “BE AWARE OF THE PADS” worker manual — which was not communicated to patrons — is the leading failure-to-warn record in trampoline-park litigation.

FMCSA / Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration / FMCSA

The agency within the United States Department of Transportation that regulates commercial-motor-vehicle safety. The FMCSA-promulgated regulations are the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. Parts 350–399. Carrier registration data is available at FMCSA SAFER Company Snapshot; aggregate crash data at Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts.

Foreseeability / Previsibilidad

The element of proximate cause requiring that the type of injury and the general manner of its occurrence have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the wrongful conduct. In trampoline-park cases, prior-incident logs, internal training materials, and industry-association safety bulletins establish foreseeability. The pattern-documenting investigative-journalism record (Boston 25, 6ABC Philadelphia, KPIX Bay Area, ABC15 Phoenix) is admissible only with a proper authentication record but is essential to the foreseeability narrative.

Forum Non Conveniens / Forum Non Conveniens

The doctrine that permits a court to dismiss a case in favor of a more convenient alternative forum. Significant in international-maritime, foreign-corporate-defendant, and out-of-state-defendant cases. The Tennessee Court of Appeals’ refusal to enforce the California forum-selection clause in Blackwell rests in part on the forum-non-conveniens framework.

Forum-Selection Clause / Cláusula de Selección de Foro

A contractual provision purporting to require disputes to be adjudicated in a specific court, county, or jurisdiction. Trampoline-park waivers commonly designate the franchisor’s home jurisdiction (Dallas, Texas, for Altitude; Grapevine, Texas, for Urban Air). The Tennessee Blackwell court struck a California forum-selection clause where the injury occurred in Tennessee and the defendant lacked California nexus.

Fraudulent Concealment / Ocultación Fraudulenta

The defendant’s intentional concealment of facts that toll the statute of limitations until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the concealed facts. Significant in cases involving destroyed surveillance footage, hidden incident reports, and undisclosed prior-injury patterns at the same facility.

General Maritime Law / Derecho Marítimo General

The body of federal common law governing maritime torts and contracts, supplemented by federal statute (Jones Act, LHWCA, OCSLA, DOHSA) and incorporating selected state-law principles where federal maritime law is silent. Critical in any offshore or maritime worker-injury matter.

Gross Negligence / Negligencia Grave

A heightened form of negligence requiring conduct involving extreme risk and the actor’s actual subjective awareness of that risk coupled with conscious indifference. The Texas standard is articulated in Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994). Gross negligence defeats most pre-injury liability waivers as a matter of public policy and unlocks exemplary damages under CPRC Chapter 41. The Cosmic Jump $11.485M Harris County verdict turned on a gross-negligence finding.

Hazing / Novatadas

Conduct that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, or maintaining membership in an organization. Defined for Texas purposes at Texas Education Code § 37.151. Federal reporting added in 2024 by the Stop Campus Hazing Act, codified within the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act framework, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f).

Indemnification / Indemnización

A contractual or common-law obligation to compensate another party for loss. The “indemnification trap” in trampoline-park, gym, and ski-resort waivers requires the parent who signed the waiver to defend and indemnify the operator against any claim — including a claim by the parent’s own injured child. The Utah Supreme Court held this provision void as to minors in Hawkins v. Peart; the doctrine is the leading attack vector against the indemnification clause and is discussed in depth in Volume I.5.

Inherent Risk / Riesgo Inherente

A risk that cannot be eliminated without fundamentally changing the activity itself. Inherent risks of trampoline jumping include the possibility of falling on the trampoline mat or colliding with another jumper. Inherent risks do not include risks created by the operator’s own negligent maintenance, training, or supervision. The Florida 2010 amendment to FS § 744.301 permits a parent to waive inherent-risk claims for a minor but not negligence claims; the negligence-versus-inherent-risk distinction is the controlling Florida attack vector.

JAMS Arbitration / Arbitraje JAMS

Arbitration administered by JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services), a private alternative-dispute-resolution provider. Sky Zone’s standard waiver designates JAMS Rule 16.1 Expedited Arbitration. Lawrence and Richardson held that JAMS unavailability does not defeat the agreement; Flanzman is the underlying authority.

Joint and Several Liability / Responsabilidad Solidaria

The rule that each defendant found liable is responsible for the entire judgment, regardless of percentage of fault, leaving the defendants to seek contribution among themselves. Texas significantly limited joint-and-several liability under CPRC Chapter 33: a defendant whose proportionate responsibility is greater than fifty percent is jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment; a defendant whose responsibility is fifty percent or less is severally liable only.

Jones Act / Ley Jones

The federal statute, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, that provides a seaman injured in the course of employment a cause of action against the seaman’s employer for negligence. The Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and applies a featherweight-causation standard (“any part, however slight”). Critical in every offshore-oilfield, commercial-fishing, tugboat, barge, supply-vessel, and merchant-marine injury matter.

Jones Act Seaman / Marinero Bajo la Ley Jones

A worker who satisfies the seaman-status test articulated in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis: duties contributing to the function or mission of a vessel and a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in both duration and nature. The thirty-percent rule of thumb is presumptive. The seaman-status determination governs whether the worker recovers under the Jones Act (with featherweight causation) or under the LHWCA (federal workers’ compensation).

Jury Nullification / Nulificación del Jurado

The historical phenomenon of a jury returning a verdict at variance with the law because of conscience, sympathy, or community standards. Not a defense strategy and not invitable by counsel, but a documented phenomenon that explains certain outsized verdicts in catastrophic-injury cases.

Letter of Protection / Carta de Protección

An attorney’s written assurance that the law firm will pay a medical provider out of any future settlement or judgment, in exchange for the provider’s agreement to treat an uninsured client without immediate payment. Critical in catastrophic-injury cases where the client cannot otherwise access necessary medical care. The Manginello Law Firm uses Letters of Protection routinely to ensure clients receive treatment without delay.

Libel / Slander / Defamation / Difamación

Defamation is a false statement of fact, published to a third party, that injures the plaintiff’s reputation. Libel is written; slander is oral. Significant in this appendix because every entity, organization, or person the firm names in its publications is named only with reference to documented court filings, agency findings, or contemporaneous reporting of record. The appendix’s editorial discipline — “alleged” framing, citation to court documents, and avoidance of unsupported characterization — protects the firm and its clients against libel exposure.

Litigation-Conduct Waiver of Arbitration / Renuncia al Arbitraje por Conducta Procesal

The doctrine that a defendant who substantially participates in litigation waives the right to compel arbitration. Coppi v. Urban Air (N.J. App. Div. 2025) is the leading recent application. Plaintiff counsel should pursue aggressive discovery to develop the litigation-conduct-waiver record in any state recognizing the doctrine.

Lockout/Tagout / Bloqueo/Etiquetado

The OSHA energy-control standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147 requiring employers to develop and implement procedures to prevent unexpected energization or startup of machinery during servicing or maintenance. Critical in refinery, petrochemical, and industrial-injury matters.

Loss of Consortium / Pérdida de Compañía

The damages a spouse may recover for the loss of the other spouse’s affection, society, companionship, sexual relations, and household services resulting from the other spouse’s injury. A separate cause of action under Texas law. Children may recover loss-of-parental-consortium damages under Reagan v. Vaughn, 804 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. 1990).

MCS-90 Endorsement / Endoso MCS-90

A federally-required endorsement to a commercial-trucking insurance policy under which the insurer agrees to pay any final judgment recovered against the insured for public-liability claims, even if the policy would otherwise be void. The MCS-90 is a public-protection floor independent of the underlying coverage and is the recovery vehicle of last resort when a carrier’s primary policy fails. Discussed in depth in Volume C.4.

Mediation / Mediación

An alternative-dispute-resolution process in which a neutral mediator helps the parties reach a voluntary settlement. Mediation is non-binding and confidential. Texas state-court mediation is governed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 154. The vast majority of personal-injury cases settle at mediation or shortly thereafter.

Motion in Limine / Moción en Limine

A pretrial motion to exclude or limit specific evidence at trial. Common limine subjects in catastrophic-injury cases include collateral-source benefits, prior settlement discussions, the plaintiff’s immigration status, the existence of insurance, and the plaintiff’s tax returns.

Motion for Summary Judgment / Moción de Juicio Sumario

A pretrial motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Texas state-court summary judgment is governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a; federal summary judgment by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Negligence / Negligencia

The four elements: duty, breach, causation, damages. The foundational Texas negligence test is articulated in countless authorities and synthesized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 281–283. Discussed throughout this appendix.

Negligent Entrustment / Entrega Negligente

The doctrine imposing liability on a defendant who provided a chattel or instrumentality to a person the defendant knew or should have known was likely to use it dangerously. Critical in commercial-trucking cases (negligent entrustment of a commercial motor vehicle to an unqualified driver) and in firearms, motor-vehicle, and equipment matters.

Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention / Contratación, Entrenamiento, Supervisión y Retención Negligente

The four direct-corporate-liability theories. A corporate defendant is liable if it negligently hired an unqualified employee, failed to train an employee adequately, failed to supervise an employee whose conduct was foreseeably dangerous, or retained an employee whose continued employment posed a known risk. Critical in trampoline-park staff-training cases (the Collins arbitration anchor), commercial-trucking driver-history cases (the Werner $1B verdict anchor), and refinery-contractor cases.

Negligence Per Se / Negligencia Per Se

The doctrine that a violation of a safety statute or regulation establishes negligence as a matter of law where the statute was designed to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff and the type of harm that occurred. FMCSA regulations, OSHA standards, CPSC reporting requirements, and Texas Education Code Chapter 37 (hazing) all support negligence-per-se theories in appropriate cases.

Non-Economic Damages / Daños No Económicos

Damages for past and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical impairment. Distinguished from economic damages (medical specials, lost wages, lost earning capacity, loss of household services). Texas does not cap non-economic damages in motor-vehicle and most personal-injury cases (the Texas medical-malpractice cap at $250,000 per provider, $750,000 aggregate, applies only to health-care-liability claims).

Non-Signatory Defendant / Demandado No Firmante

A defendant that did not sign the operative arbitration agreement. Critical plaintiff-side strategy in trampoline-park cases — name the franchisor, the equipment manufacturer, the property owner, the affiliated management LLC, and the individual owner-operators as separate defendants. Claims against non-signatories typically remain in court even when the signing party’s claim is compelled to arbitration. The carve-out is recognized in Texas under Geter and in New Jersey under Perez.

Paid-or-Incurred / Pagado o Incurrido

The Texas medical-damages-recovery rule from Haygood v. De Escobedo limiting recovery for past medical expenses to the amount actually paid or incurred after contractual or statutory adjustments. Plaintiff counsel must develop parallel evidence of full billed amounts (admissible for medical necessity and reasonableness) and paid amounts (the recoverable figure under Haygood).

Parens Patriae / Parens Patriae

The state’s standing to act as the protective parent of citizens unable to protect themselves — children, mental incompetents, and similarly-situated persons. The doctrinal foundation of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s holding in Hojnowski that a parent cannot waive a minor child’s substantive tort claim.

Parental Pre-Injury Waiver / Renuncia Pre-Lesión por los Padres

The contractual provision purporting to release a minor’s prospective tort claims, signed by a parent or legal guardian on the child’s behalf. The 50-state enforceability matrix is set out in detail in Volume E.1. Plaintiff-friendly states include Pennsylvania (Santiago/Shultz 2025), Tennessee (Blackwell 2017), Iowa (Galloway 2010), Michigan (Woodman 2010, commercial only), Utah (Hawkins 2001), Washington (Scott 1992), Connecticut (Hanks 2005), New Jersey (Hojnowski 2006, substance only), New York (NY GOL § 5-326), Florida (Kirton 2008, negligence only), Louisiana (Alicea 2016 on adhesionary clauses), Virginia (Hiett 1992), Wisconsin, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana. Park-friendly or nuanced states include Texas (Cerna 2025), Maryland (BJ’s 2013), and Colorado (CRS § 13-22-107).

Premises Liability / Responsabilidad de Locales

The body of law governing the duty of a possessor of land to persons on the land. Texas distinguishes invitees (highest duty), licensees (intermediate), and trespassers (lowest), with adjustments for child trespassers and known-trespasser-pattern situations. Critical in trampoline-park, water-park, retail-store, hotel, restaurant, and apartment-complex injury matters.

Products Liability / Responsabilidad por Productos

The body of law imposing liability on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of defective products. Texas applies the Restatement (Third) framework with manufacturing defect, design defect (risk-utility plus reasonable-alternative-design), and warning defect categories. CPSC recall history, prior-incident records, and engineering-analysis records are central to development. Anderson v. Hedstrom is the foundational consumer-trampoline case.

Proximate Cause / Causa Próxima

The legal-cause element of every Texas negligence claim, requiring foreseeability and a substantial connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s injury. Distinguished from cause-in-fact (the but-for question) by the foreseeability filter that screens out remote or fortuitous consequences.

Punitive Damages / Daños Punitivos

See Exemplary Damages.

Rebuttable Presumption / Presunción Rebatible

An evidentiary device shifting the burden of producing evidence on a fact, subject to refutation. Texas treats certain agency findings, FMCSA out-of-service reports, OSHA citations, and CPSC recall determinations as evidence carrying rebuttable-presumption weight in subsequent civil litigation.

Rhabdomyolysis Claim / Reclamo por Rabdomiólisis

A personal-injury claim arising from rhabdomyolysis — the breakdown of skeletal-muscle tissue, with myoglobin release into the bloodstream and acute kidney injury. The medical mechanism is treated in detail at Volume B.2 — rhabdomyolysis. Cited as the principal injury allegation in Bermudez v. University of Houston.

Respondeat Superior / Respondeat Superior

The Latin doctrine (“let the master answer”) imposing vicarious liability on an employer for the torts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. Significant in every commercial-trucking, refinery-contractor, retail-store, and trampoline-park staff-injury matter where the negligent actor is an employee.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (Discovery — General) / Regla 26 de las Reglas Federales

The umbrella federal-discovery rule. Includes the initial-disclosure requirement (Rule 26(a)(1)), the expert-disclosure requirement (Rule 26(a)(2)), and the proportionality framework for discovery scope (Rule 26(b)(1)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (Corporate Deposition) / Regla 30(b)(6)

The mechanism for deposing a corporate defendant. The plaintiff serves a notice listing the topics of examination; the corporate defendant designates a witness or witnesses authorized to speak for the corporation on each listed topic. Critical in trampoline-park, commercial-trucking, refinery, and Greek-organization-defendant litigation. Rule 30(b)(6) topic sets are catalogued in Volume H.2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (Document Production) / Regla 34

The federal discovery rule governing requests for production of documents and electronically-stored information. Industry-specific Rule 34 demand outlines are catalogued in Volume H.1.

Spoliation / Destrucción de Evidencia

The destruction or loss of evidence, intentionally or negligently, after the duty to preserve attached. Texas treats spoliation as a discovery sanction matter under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215 and as substantive evidence under Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014). Sanctions range from adverse-inference instruction to dismissal. The Knight Georgia $3.5M verdict turned on spoliation. The plaintiff’s preservation-of-evidence letter triggers the duty to preserve.

Stowers Demand / Demanda Stowers

A within-policy-limits settlement demand structured under the G.A. Stowers Furniture doctrine. A reasonable, properly-supported, within-limits demand creates duty on the carrier to evaluate; an unreasonable refusal exposes the insurer to excess-judgment liability. The Stowers demand is the most important Texas pre-suit insurance lever in catastrophic-injury practice.

Special Relationship Doctrine / Doctrina de Relación Especial

The principle, set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, that certain relationships impose an affirmative duty to take reasonable action for the protection of another. Trampoline-park operators, ski-resort operators, gym owners, common carriers, innkeepers, and possessors of land open to the public for fee owe their patrons an affirmative duty of protection. The duty is not contractually waivable as a matter of public policy in many jurisdictions.

Strict Products Liability / Responsabilidad Objetiva por Productos

A products-liability theory imposing liability without proof of fault on a seller of a defective product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. Texas adopted strict products liability in McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1967) and applies the modern Restatement (Third) framework.

Survival Action / Acción de Supervivencia

The cause of action that the decedent could have brought during life, asserted by the personal representative of the estate. CPRC § 71.021. Distinguished from the wrongful-death action under § 71.002, which lies for the benefit of statutory beneficiaries (spouse, children, parents). Survival recovery includes the decedent’s pre-death conscious pain and suffering.

Title IX / Título IX

The federal civil-rights statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds. 20 U.S.C. § 1681. A parallel cause of action in hazing matters that involve sexual assault, sex-based harassment, or gender-based exclusion.

Tort / Agravio Civil

A civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which a court may impose liability. The body of tort law includes negligence, strict liability, intentional torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress), defamation, products liability, and premises liability.

Tunkl Test (Six-Factor Public-Interest Waiver Test) / Prueba Tunkl

The six-factor test from Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California for determining when an exculpatory contract is invalid as against public policy: (1) suitability for public regulation, (2) service of great importance to the public, (3) willingness to perform for any member of the public, (4) decisive bargaining advantage, (5) presented as adhesion, (6) customer placed under control of the party furnishing the service. Plaintiff counsel attacking any commercial-recreational waiver should plead the six factors specifically.

Unconscionability (Procedural and Substantive) / Inconcebibilidad

The contract-law doctrine that voids a clause or contract that is so unfair or oppressive in its formation (procedural) or content (substantive) that it shocks the conscience. The Louisiana Supreme Court applied unconscionability to Sky Zone’s adhesionary, non-mutual, $5,000-liquidated-damages arbitration clause in Alicea v. Activelaf. The Texas variant is recognized in In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002).

Unseaworthiness / Inavegabilidad

The general-maritime-law doctrine imposing absolute liability on a vessel owner for injury caused by an unseaworthy condition of the vessel — including unfit crew, unsafe equipment, inadequate manning, and improper procedures. Distinct from a Jones Act negligence claim and frequently pleaded as a parallel theory. Punitive damages are not available in unseaworthiness following Dutra Group v. Batterton, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).

Vicarious Liability / Responsabilidad Vicaria

Liability imposed on one party for the conduct of another, without fault by the liable party itself. Includes respondeat superior (employer/employee), franchisor liability under apparent agency, and Greek-organization national-headquarters liability for the conduct of local chapters under Texas Education Code § 37.153.

Wrongful Death / Muerte Injusta

A cause of action created by statute permitting designated statutory beneficiaries to recover for the death of a family member caused by another’s wrongful act. Texas wrongful death is governed by CPRC § 71.002; the survival counterpart by § 71.021. Discussed throughout this appendix.

B.2 Medical and Injury Terms — English with Spanish Equivalents

The medical glossary covers the injury types most often litigated in this firm’s practice. Each entry includes mechanism, severity scaling where applicable, prognosis indicators, and a settlement-range bracket drawn from the firm’s documented matters and from the public verdict record.

Amputation / Amputación

The traumatic or surgical loss of a limb or extremity. Severity is described by amputation level — finger or toe (digital); below-knee (BKA); above-knee (AKA); transradial; transhumeral; below-elbow; above-elbow; hip disarticulation; shoulder disarticulation. Prognosis indicators include phantom-limb pain, neuroma formation, prosthetic adaptation, vocational impairment, and lifetime prosthetic-replacement schedule (typically every three to five years). Settlement-range indicators in the firm’s documented practice: $1,945,000 to $8,630,000. The Manginello Law Firm has resolved a $3.8M+ amputation matter involving a partial leg amputation following car-accident-induced staph infection during medical treatment.

Anoxic / Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury / Lesión Cerebral Anóxica / Hipóxica

Brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation. Mechanisms include cardiac arrest, near-drowning, severe respiratory compromise, asphyxiation (positional, mechanical, chemical), and severe blood loss. The medical assessment uses the Glasgow Coma Scale, neuroimaging (MRI showing watershed-zone injury), neuropsychological testing, and serial neurological examination. Recovery is typically poor when the anoxic insult exceeds approximately five minutes; permanent vegetative state, minimally conscious state, or death are common.

Asphyxia / Asfixia

The pathologic state of inadequate oxygen exchange. Subtypes: positional asphyxia (the body’s posture prevents adequate breathing), mechanical asphyxia (external compression of the airway or thorax), chemical asphyxia (carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane displacement), and asphyxia by drowning. Critical in trampoline-park hair-entrapment and clothing-entanglement cases (drawstring strangulation, hood-edge positional asphyxia at foam-pit transitions); in refinery and confined-space matters (hydrogen sulfide); and in inter-patron altercation cases.

Aspiration / Aspiración

The inhalation of foreign material (food, vomitus, secretions, water) into the airway and lungs. Mechanism in trampoline-park cases includes vomiting after head-first foam-pit landing followed by aspiration of vomitus; jumping after eating, with airway compromise during vigorous physical activity; and aspiration following alcohol intoxication in collegiate hazing matters such as the Foltz, Gruver, and Coffey deaths. Aspiration pneumonia is a documented secondary cause of death in alcohol-poisoning hazing fatalities.

Cervical Spine Fracture / Fractura de la Columna Cervical

Fracture of one or more of the seven cervical vertebrae (C1 through C7). The injury level governs the resulting impairment: C1–C3 fractures often produce immediate respiratory arrest and death (Ric Swezey, Virginia, 2017); C4–C5 fractures produce quadriplegia with respiratory dependence (Ty Thomasson — five cervical vertebrae fractured at SkyPark Phoenix, 2012, fatal); C5–C7 fractures produce quadriplegia with progressively-better arm function (Damion Collins, Urban Air Overland Park, 2021, $15.6M arbitration). Cervical spinal-cord injury is among the most expensive injury types in American medical practice; lifetime medical costs exceed $5,000,000 routinely. Settlement-range indicators in the firm’s documented practice and in the public verdict record: $4,770,000 to $25,880,000+.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) / Síndrome de Dolor Regional Complejo

A chronic-pain syndrome typically developing after a precipitating injury, characterized by burning pain, allodynia, hyperalgesia, autonomic dysfunction, and trophic changes. Diagnosed under the Budapest Criteria. CRPS is well-recognized in the catastrophic-injury context and is litigated with full economic and non-economic damages. The defense routinely contests CRPS diagnosis and causation; plaintiff counsel must develop the diagnostic record carefully.

Compartment Syndrome / Síndrome Compartimental

A surgical emergency in which increased pressure within a closed muscle compartment compromises circulation, leading to tissue ischemia, necrosis, and potential limb loss. Critical in crush-injury, prolonged-immobilization, and severe-burn cases. Treated with emergency fasciotomy.

Concussion (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury) / Conmoción Cerebral

A mild traumatic brain injury characterized by transient neurological dysfunction following blunt-force trauma to the head, typically with Glasgow Coma Scale 13–15, brief loss of consciousness or none, and post-traumatic amnesia under thirty minutes. Persistent post-concussive syndrome (cognitive impairment, headache, mood disturbance) is a documented sequela in approximately ten to twenty percent of concussion patients. Repetitive concussions are associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Disc Herniation (Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar) / Hernia Discal

The displacement of intervertebral disc material beyond the normal disc margin, often impinging on a nerve root or the spinal cord. Diagnosed by MRI. Surgical treatment options include microdiscectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar fusion, and artificial disc replacement. Settlement-range indicators in the firm’s documented practice: $346,000 to $1,205,000 for surgically-treated herniations; $50,000 to $200,000 for non-surgical cases.

Disfigurement / Desfiguración

Permanent alteration of physical appearance. Distinguished from scarring (which is more limited). Disfigurement in Texas is a separate non-economic damages category recoverable as past and future. Facial disfigurement commands particularly high non-economic damages, as does disfigurement affecting the hands, neck, or other visible areas.

Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE) / Trombosis Venosa Profunda y Embolia Pulmonar

Thrombus formation in the deep venous system (DVT), with the risk of embolic migration to the pulmonary arteries (PE). DVT/PE is a frequent secondary complication of prolonged immobilization following catastrophic injury. The Knight Georgia $3.5M verdict involved a documented DVT secondary complication.

Femur Fracture / Fractura de Fémur

Fracture of the thigh bone, the strongest bone in the human body. The most common pediatric trampoline-park injury. Mechanisms include double-bounce trauma when a smaller jumper is launched by a larger jumper’s downward force, single-jumper landing onto a trampoline-frame edge, and direct collision with another patron. Subtypes include comminuted, spiral, oblique, and transverse fractures. Pediatric femur fractures often require operative reduction with intramedullary nailing or plate fixation. Long-term sequelae include leg-length discrepancy, malunion, growth-plate disturbance, and lifetime orthopedic monitoring.

Foot Entrapment / Atrapamiento del Pie

A trampoline-court injury mechanism in which the foot becomes trapped between the trampoline mat and the metal frame, between adjacent trampoline mats in an interconnected system, or in a spring-pad-coverage gap. Produces tibia and fibula fractures, peroneal-nerve injury, and sometimes degloving. The Wareham Massachusetts Sky Zone Boston teen-plaintiff case is the leading example; the patron’s right foot caught between mat and frame, requiring four surgeries and approximately one year on crutches.

Growth-Plate Fracture (Salter-Harris) / Fractura de la Placa de Crecimiento

A pediatric fracture involving the epiphyseal growth plate, classified Salter-Harris I (separation through the physis only), II (physis and metaphysis), III (physis and epiphysis), IV (metaphysis through epiphysis), and V (compression injury to the physis). Salter-Harris IV and V carry the highest risk of growth disturbance and limb-length discrepancy. The Flight Deck Fort Worth four-year-old plaintiff case is the Texas anchor — the child sustained Salter-Harris fractures of both the tibia and fibula and is permanently prohibited from contact sports with lifetime orthopedic-specialist monitoring every six months until age eighteen.

Hair Entrapment / Scalp Avulsion / Atrapamiento de Cabello / Avulsión del Cuero Cabelludo

An injury mechanism in which long unbraided hair becomes wrapped around trampoline springs, ventilation-fan intakes, or netting gaps. The rotational force at full rebound exceeds the tear strength of scalp tissue; scalp avulsion (separation of scalp from skull) results. UK BSI PAS 5000:2017 mandates hair-entrapment inspection at entry; ASTM F2970-25 does not. The hair-entrapment hazard is one of the nine “Rule Vacuum” categories addressed in Volume F.7.

Internal Organ Damage / Daño a Órganos Internos

Traumatic injury to the spleen, liver, kidneys, pancreas, intestines, or other internal viscera. Mechanism in this firm’s practice typically involves blunt-force trauma from motor-vehicle collisions, refinery blasts, falls from height, and crush injuries. Often life-threatening at the time of injury and frequently producing lifetime sequelae (splenectomy increases lifetime infection risk; liver laceration risks cirrhotic transformation; kidney loss requires lifetime renal monitoring).

Loss of Consortium (Medical Aspects) / Pérdida de Compañía

The non-medical injury element captured by the legal cause of action. Discussed at Loss of Consortium in B.1.

PCL / ACL / MCL Knee Ligament Injury / Lesión del Ligamento de la Rodilla (PCL/ACL/MCL)

Tear or rupture of one of the four major knee ligaments — anterior cruciate (ACL), posterior cruciate (PCL), medial collateral (MCL), or lateral collateral (LCL). PCL injuries from trampoline-park transitions are documented in the Get Air Pennsylvania $412,445 verdict. ACL reconstruction is one of the most common surgical procedures in adolescent and young-adult sports medicine. Long-term sequelae include early-onset osteoarthritis, meniscal degeneration, and chronic instability.

Pilon Fracture / Fractura de Pilón

A high-energy intra-articular fracture of the distal tibia involving the weight-bearing surface of the ankle. Comminution is common. Long-term sequelae include post-traumatic ankle arthritis, ankle stiffness, and chronic pain often requiring ankle fusion or replacement. The Kansas trampoline-park September 2025 $1M policy-limits settlement involved a comminuted compound pilon fracture.

Rhabdomyolysis / Rabdomiólisis

The breakdown of skeletal-muscle tissue, with release of intracellular contents (myoglobin, creatine kinase, potassium, phosphate) into the circulation. Diagnostic features include critically elevated serum creatine kinase, dark or “tea-colored” urine (myoglobinuria, the brown-urine sign), and acute kidney injury from myoglobin precipitation in the renal tubules. Mechanisms in personal-injury practice include extended high-intensity exertion (the principal mechanism alleged in Bermudez v. UH), crush injury, prolonged immobilization, severe burns, and certain medications and drugs of abuse. Treatment is aggressive intravenous hydration and electrolyte management; severe cases require renal-replacement therapy. Long-term sequelae include permanent renal impairment.

Spinal Cord Injury (Quadriplegia / Paraplegia) / Lesión de la Médula Espinal

Damage to the spinal cord producing partial or complete loss of motor and sensory function below the level of injury. Classification under the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA): A (complete), B (sensory incomplete), C (motor incomplete with most key muscles below injury level grade <3), D (motor incomplete with most key muscles ≥3), E (normal). Cervical-level injury produces quadriplegia (Damion Collins, Urban Air, 2021); thoracic and lumbar injury produce paraplegia. Lifetime medical costs frequently exceed $5,000,000 and may approach $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 in cervical-complete cases. Settlement-range indicators: $4,770,000 to $25,880,000+.

Strangulation (Anti-, Peri-, Post-) / Estrangulación

External compression of the neck producing airway obstruction, vascular compromise, or both. Subtypes by timing: ante-strangulation (preceded by other trauma), peri-strangulation (concurrent), and post-strangulation (delayed). The CPSC’s 2026 SEGMART toddler-trampoline recall is a strangulation-hazard product recall. Drawstring entanglement at trampoline-park netting is a documented strangulation mechanism. Sequelae of even brief non-fatal strangulation include traumatic brain injury, anoxic injury, vocal-cord paralysis, and chronic neuropathic pain.

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) / Lesión Cerebral Traumática

Brain injury caused by external mechanical force. Severity scaled by the Glasgow Coma Scale: mild (GCS 13–15), moderate (GCS 9–12), severe (GCS ≤8). Severity also assessed by post-traumatic amnesia duration and loss-of-consciousness duration. Mechanisms include blunt-force trauma (the Cosmic Jump $11.485M Harris County verdict — fractured skull, seizures, TBI), penetrating injury, and acceleration-deceleration without skull fracture (diffuse axonal injury). Rancho Los Amigos Levels of Cognitive Functioning and the AIS / ISS injury-severity scoring systems guide rehabilitation and long-term care. Settlement-range indicators in the firm’s documented practice: $1,548,000 to $9,838,000+. The Manginello Law Firm has resolved a $5M+ TBI matter involving a worker struck by a falling log.

Tibia and Fibula Fracture / Fractura de Tibia y Peroné

Fracture of one or both lower-leg bones. Open fractures (compound, with bone exposed through skin) carry significantly higher infection and complication risk than closed fractures. The Knight Georgia $3.5M verdict involved an open tibia/fibula fracture with secondary DVT and disability. Operative reduction with intramedullary nailing or plate fixation is the modern standard. Long-term sequelae include malunion, post-traumatic arthritis, leg-length discrepancy in pediatric cases, and chronic pain.

Whiplash / Cervical Strain / Latigazo Cervical

A soft-tissue injury of the cervical spine caused by acceleration-deceleration force, typically from a rear-impact motor-vehicle collision. Symptoms include neck pain, headache, restricted range of motion, and (in severe cases) referred pain to the shoulders, arms, and back. Imaging is often unremarkable; clinical evaluation, range-of-motion testing, and palpation drive diagnosis. Settlement-range indicators in the firm’s documented practice: $15,000 to $60,000 for soft-tissue-only cases; $50,000 to $200,000 when associated with non-surgical disc involvement.

B.3 Industry, Safety-Standard, and Regulatory Terms

AAA Arbitration (American Arbitration Association)

The principal United States private commercial-arbitration administrator. Altitude Trampoline Park’s standard arbitration provision designates AAA arbitration in Dallas, Texas. The Damion Collins / Urban Air Overland Park $15.6M award was administered through AAA under docket number 01-22-0001-5781.

API Process-Safety Recommended Practices (RP 752, RP 753, RP 754)

The American Petroleum Institute’s process-safety recommended-practice series. RP 752 (Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Permanent Buildings, 4th edition, January 2024) governs siting of permanent buildings; RP 753 (Portable Buildings, 2nd edition, January 2024) governs siting of trailers and modular units; RP 754 (Process Safety Performance Indicators) defines the Tier 1–4 incident-reporting framework. The post-BP-Texas-City regulatory baseline.

ASTM F2970-25

The current consensus voluntary standard for design, manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, and major modification of trampoline courts. Cited by reference in Arizona, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Colorado. See full citation at A.4 — ASTM F2970-25.

Blueprint-of-Coverage Discovery Demand

The plaintiff’s structured discovery production demanding all primary, excess, umbrella, and SIR (self-insured retention) layers, including reservation-of-rights letters, MCS-90 endorsements, participant-injury exclusions, and franchisor-master-policy structures. Critical in trampoline-park, commercial-trucking, and refinery cases to establish the full available recovery field.

CDL — Commercial Driver’s License

The federal-and-state-issued license required for the operation of certain commercial motor vehicles. CDL Class A authorizes combination vehicles over 26,001 lbs; Class B authorizes single vehicles over 26,001 lbs; Class C authorizes vehicles transporting hazardous materials or sixteen or more passengers. Endorsements: H (HazMat), N (tank vehicle), P (passenger), S (school bus), T (double/triple trailer), X (combination tank/HazMat). Governed by 49 C.F.R. Part 383.

CGL — Commercial General Liability Policy

The standard commercial-business liability insurance form. CGL policies routinely include participant-injury exclusions in the trampoline-park context (see Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Altitude Trampoline) and frequently produce duty-to-defend declaratory-judgment litigation (see Great American Assurance v. Sky Zone). Discussed in depth in Volume F.8.

CPSC NEISS — National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s nationally-representative emergency-department-based product-injury surveillance system. NEISS data is the principal federal source for trampoline-injury epidemiology and is the basis for the firm’s discussion in Volume F.2. Public-use data: CPSC NEISS.

CSA / BASIC Scores — Compliance, Safety, Accountability

The FMCSA’s pattern-of-violation enforcement program, scoring carriers across seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs): Unsafe Driving, Hours-of-Service Compliance, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Vehicle Maintenance, Hazardous Materials Compliance, and Crash Indicator. Subpoena CSA history in every commercial-trucking case to develop pattern-of-violation evidence supporting punitive-damages claims.

CSB — Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

The independent federal agency that investigates major chemical-industry incidents in the United States. The CSB BP Texas City final report remains one of the most-cited federal industrial-accident investigations in American regulatory history.

CVSA Out-of-Service Criteria

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria. Roadside out-of-service findings are independent negligence evidence in any post-crash trucking case.

ELD — Electronic Logging Device

The hardware device that automatically records a commercial-vehicle driver’s hours of service, mandated for most carriers since December 18, 2017 under 49 C.F.R. § 395.8. ELDs replaced paper logs and substantially reduced (but did not eliminate) HOS-violation falsification. Subpoena ELD records within thirty days of crash; the FMCSA-required minimum retention is six months.

ELDT — Entry-Level Driver Training

The federally-required training program for new commercial-driver-license applicants, governed by the FMCSA. Substandard ELDT is a documented basis for negligent-hiring and negligent-training claims against motor carriers and CDL training schools.

FARS — Fatality Analysis Reporting System

The NHTSA-administered census of fatal motor-vehicle traffic crashes. The principal federal source for fatal-crash data in commercial-vehicle and passenger-vehicle litigation. NHTSA FARS; query tool: CDAN/FIRST.

IATP — International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association

The principal trampoline-industry trade association. Offers three voluntary certifications through the Amusement Adventure Institute (Court Monitor, International Certified Operator, Trampoline Court Inspector Level 1). See full citation at A.4 — IATP.

ISNetworld / Veriforce

Third-party contractor-management platforms used by oil-and-gas operators, refiners, and other industrials to track contractor safety performance. ISNetworld scores, EMR (experience modification rate) records, and OSHA citation history are subpoena targets in any contractor-injury matter.

MCS-150 — Motor Carrier Identification Report

The biennial filing through which an interstate motor carrier registers and updates its identification information with the FMCSA. Establishes corporate identity, contact information, fleet size, and operational classification. Public via FMCSA SAFER.

MCS-90 — Endorsement for Motor Carrier Public-Liability Coverage

The federally-required endorsement under which the insurer pays public-liability judgments even when the underlying policy would otherwise be void. Discussed at B.1 — MCS-90 Endorsement.

OSHA Severe Injury Reporting (SIR)

The federal program requiring employers to report all work-related amputations, hospitalizations, and losses of an eye to OSHA within twenty-four hours. Public dashboard: OSHA SIR. Critical pattern-of-incident discovery target in industrial cases.

SaferProducts.gov

The CPSC’s public consumer-complaint database. Searchable by brand, manufacturer, product, and incident type at SaferProducts.gov. Used in pre-litigation diligence for any consumer-product matter.

SAFER — FMCSA Safety and Fitness Electronic Records

The FMCSA’s public-records portal for motor-carrier safety, registration, and crash data. Company Snapshot at SAFER.

SMS — FMCSA Safety Measurement System

The FMCSA’s data-driven motor-carrier safety scoring framework. Underlies the CSA/BASIC enforcement program. Scores reflect carrier-level violation patterns over rolling twenty-four-month windows.

Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024) / Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act

The 2024 federal statute amending the Higher Education Act of 1965 to add hazing-incident reporting to the existing Clery framework. As of December 23, 2024, the Clery Act is officially renamed the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act. See A.2 — Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act.

Volume C — Parties and Entities Index

Every named defendant, third-party defendant, manufacturer, government agency, educational institution, and investigative outlet referenced in this appendix is collected here, organized by industry. Each entity entry includes the corporate domicile, the case associations, and where applicable the regulatory or enforcement history. The Parties Index is the cross-reference scaffold that lets a reader move from a single case to the full litigation footprint of any of its parties — and from a single corporate defendant to every case in which the defendant has appeared.

C.1 Trampoline-Park Operators and Franchisors with Texas Footprint

Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park (UATP Management LLC; UATP Holdings LLC; UA Attractions; Family Adventures franchise group)

Corporate headquarters: 2350 Airport Freeway, Bedford, Texas (Tarrant County). The Tarrant County corporate-headquarters location makes Urban Air a chain-HQ jurisdiction — every documented operational failure at any United States Urban Air park is, in some discovery sense, a Tarrant County document, traceable to Tarrant County personnel. Texas footprint: approximately fifty Texas locations spanning the Houston metro (ten plus, including the Sugar Land facility involved in the Lakhani harness-attachment matter), Dallas–Fort Worth (the densest in the country, including Southlake — the location whose Tripadvisor parent reviewer wrote that “employees are specifically instructed by management to NOT call 911”), Austin metro, Bryan/College Station, Killeen, Waco, San Antonio (five locations), New Braunfels, Beaumont (the Geter case site at 6250 Eastex Freeway), Corpus Christi, El Paso, McAllen, Harlingen, Laredo. Active litigation cluster: Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC (Tex. May 23, 2025); Beaumont Adventure Park Urban Air, LLC v. Geter (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 12, 2024); Bite Entertainment, LLC d/b/a Urban Air South San Antonio v. Trevino (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024); Collins v. Urban Air Adventure Park (Overland Park) (AAA No. 01-22-0001-5781) — $15,600,000 net arbitration award with UATP Management LLC absorbing forty percent of the gross approximately $19.5 million; Coppi v. Family Adventures North Jersey, LLC d/b/a Urban Air (N.J. App. Div. 2025); Riddle v. Urban Air Port St. Lucie (Dec. 2025 wrongful death of six-year-old Emma Riddle in a go-kart attraction). Significance: Urban Air is the most-litigated commercial trampoline-park operator in the United States as of the publication date of this appendix, and the chain whose direct-benefits-estoppel arbitration posture is currently controlling Texas appellate authority.

Altitude Trampoline Park (CIRCA, ATP Alpha)

Corporate headquarters: Fort Worth, Texas. Texas footprint: Houston metro (Sugar Land, Spring/Klein, Webster); Dallas–Fort Worth (Cedar Hill, Richardson, Fort Worth Cityview, Fort Worth Keller); Austin metro (South Austin / West Gate, Round Rock); San Antonio (11075 Interstate 10 West); Odessa (the Parker foam-pit fact pattern site). Notable cases: Lu v. Altitude Gastonia (climbing-wall fatality, 2019); Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Altitude Trampoline (participant-injury exclusion declaratory action). Waiver structure: the chain’s standard customer waiver contains the $100 collective-damages cap, AAA arbitration in Dallas, class-action waiver, one-year limitations period, indemnification provision, and franchisee carveout fully analyzed in Volume I.1.

Sky Zone (CircusTrix; Sky Zone LLC)

Corporate parent: CircusTrix. Texas footprint: Houston metro (Baytown, Cypress/Copperfield, Spring/The Woodlands); Dallas–Fort Worth (Frisco Preston Ridge, Hurst Fort Worth, Irving); Austin (Cedar Park — first Sky Zone in the Austin metro); El Paso (East and West, both rebranded from former Rockin’ Jump locations). Active litigation footprint: Blackwell v. Sky High Sports Nashville Operations, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017); Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park (N.J. App. Div. 2021); Johnson, Lawrence, Richardson, and Perez (the New Jersey Sky Zone arbitration cluster); Shultz v. Sky Zone, LLC (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2025) (consolidated with Santiago); the New Jersey consumer class-action settlement led by Locks Law Firm (Alfred M. Anthony, Esq.) attacking the waiver itself as overly broad. Documented enforcement actions: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries fined Sky Zone Vancouver $22,000+ in February 2024 for child-labor and meal-break violations affecting approximately forty-five teen employees; Sky Zone Tukwila received $68,000+ in L&I penalties for similar violations characterized as “another” Sky Zone — chain-wide pattern.

Cosmic Air (Cosmic Jump)

Texas footprint: Katy (1210 Fry Road), Humble (256 FM 1960 Bypass Road East), Webster. The Houston-area chain whose original Cosmic Jump location in northwest Harris County is the site of the $11.485 million Menchaca verdict — the largest reported jury verdict against a United States commercial trampoline park as of the publication date.

Launch Family Entertainment

Texas footprint: West Houston (13331 Westheimer Road — the only Houston-metro park with a full-service Krave bar); Lewisville; announced expansions in Buda, Cedar Park, and Round Rock. The dram-shop overlay matters in any case involving in-house alcohol service — see B.1 dram-shop liability.

Jumping World

Texas footprint: Northwest Houston (14147 Northwest Freeway), Sharpstown (6904 Southwest Freeway), Beaumont (2651 South 11th Street), Corpus Christi (1601 Flour Bluff Drive), El Paso (5850 Onix Drive — adds the chain’s signature JW Bar & Grill).

Flight Deck Trampoline Park (Fort Worth)

Notable matter: four-year-old plaintiff lawsuit seeking $1 million for Salter-Harris growth-plate fractures of both right tibia and fibula sustained April 7, 2017 when other jumpers were allowed onto the same trampoline despite the park’s posted single-occupancy rule. The textbook Texas “rule on paper but not enforced” gross-negligence template.

The Rush Fun Park

Corporate domicile: San Antonio. Texas footprint: three Bexar County locations (Huebner at 14610 Huebner Road; South San Antonio at 114 Southwest Military Drive; Universal City at 3150 Pat Booker Road).

Other Texas-Operating Trampoline Parks

Big Air (North Houston, 3040 FM 1960 Road East). Get Air (Houston; Brownsville). Helium Trampoline Park (El Paso; McAllen). House of Air × Ninja Kidz Action Park (Crowley, Texas — co-branded with the Ninja Kidz TV YouTube channel; marketing-vs.-reality angle worth scrutinizing in any pediatric injury at that location). Ninja Nation (Austin at 6500 North Lamar Boulevard — chain’s largest Texas facility at 16,000 square feet; Murphy at 150 East FM 544 Suite A). Ninja Kidz Action Park (North Richland Hills at 8800 North Tarrant Parkway). Move Sport Ninja Academy (Pflugerville, 16808 Joe Barbee Drive — owned by seven-time American Ninja Warrior finalist Andy Lowes). Ground Control (Las Colinas at 2000 Marketplace Boulevard, Irving — the DFW metro’s only flush in-ground trampoline park; San Antonio at 9870 Marbach Road). Iron Sports Houston (6982 FM 1960 West — has trained more than fifty competitors who advanced to American Ninja Warrior nationals). Sam Sann Warriors (Memorial / Spring Branch corridor — the successor flagship to Iron Sports). Airtopia Adventure Park (San Antonio at 16628 San Pedro Avenue). Xtreme Jump (San Benito-headquartered, with operations in McAllen, San Benito, Harlingen, and a 60,000-square-foot Temple flagship). Iris Sports, iJump (Tyler), Sky Park Kids, Flip N’ Fun Center, Sky Sports, iRise Trampoline & Fun Park (Houston-metro independents).

C.2 Trampoline Manufacturers and CPSC Recall History

The CPSC recall history of consumer-trampoline manufacturers establishes the long-standing federal regulatory posture toward trampoline product defects. Each entry includes the recall year, the manufacturer, the affected product, the hazard, the units affected, and the controlling case where applicable.

Hedstrom Corporation

2003 CPSC recall (Recall 03-168): backyard / consumer trampolines sold through Bradlees and other mass retailers. Welds on frame rails broke during use; approximately seven hundred reports of weld breakage and ten minor injuries at the recall date. Litigation: Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) — the foundational consumer-trampoline product-liability decision in American federal court. The 2003 backyard-Connecticut residential settlement involving a seven-year-old’s fractured arm and a $65,000 settlement was directly tied to a Hedstrom-brand trampoline.

Jumpking Inc. (Mesquite, Texas)

January 24, 2005 CPSC recall (Recall 05-092): trampolines plus FunRing enclosures. Frame welds broke during use, producing falls and injuries; FunRing enclosure mounting brackets had sharp edges, producing nine serious lacerations to children. Forty-seven weld reports producing twenty-one injuries (concussion, head/neck/back, broken arm, sprains, lacerations, bruises). Twelve enclosure-bracket reports. Units affected: approximately 1,000,000 trampolines plus approximately 296,000 FunRing enclosures — among the largest trampoline-product recalls in United States history. Texas significance: Mesquite, Texas-domiciled corporate defendant; subject to Texas long-arm jurisdiction in any United States resident-plaintiff matter against the manufacturer.

Skywalker Holdings

May 26, 2009 CPSC recall (Recall 09-230): thirteen-foot square trampoline plus enclosure combinations sold January 2007 through February 2009 with blue spring pads, black net enclosures, and jumping mat. Straps holding the top of the enclosure to side poles failed, allowing the enclosure to drop. At least 250 reports of strap breakage at the recall date. Units affected: approximately 60,000.

Sportspower / BouncePro (Walmart Exclusive)

May 2012 (initial) and January 2013 (expansion) CPSC recalls: BouncePro 14-foot trampolines (model TR-14-63-A) with brown Tetlon netting (initial recall) and black Tetlon netting (expansion). Netting broke; children fell through. Initial recall: seventeen reports producing eleven injuries (broken bones, back/neck, contusions). Expansion: nine additional reports producing five additional injuries. Units affected: initial approximately 92,000 (Walmart-exclusive February 2009 through March 2011); expansion approximately 120,000 total BouncePro. Separate Sports Authority secondary recall in 2013.

Super Jumper

August 2019 CPSC recall: 14-foot and 16-foot trampolines plus combinations sold without reinforcement clamps via Wayfair, Amazon, Hayneedle, and Overstock from November 2011 through June 2019 at $200 to $400. Welds on metal railings supporting the trampoline weakened and broke, causing falls. Ninety-seven consumer reports of weld failures producing four-plus injuries at the recall date. Units affected: approximately 23,000.

JumpSport

2019 CPSC recall: folding mini trampolines sold via Amazon, Costco, JumpSport.com, and specialty fitness retailers from January 2011 through November 2018 at $250 to $500. Frame could forcefully strike user during incorrect unfolding/folding. Nine injuries (cuts, bruises, dental/facial). JumpSport characterized the recall as an “instructions/warning label” recall — a failure-to-warn-recharacterization that creates an additional plaintiff-side attack vector. Units affected: 11,300 United States plus 1,200 Canada. 1999 prior recall: trampoline safety net enclosures with strap-failure hazard.

SEGMART

2026 CPSC recall: mini round toddler trampolines. Hazard: strangulation; risk of serious injury or death. The most recent CPSC trampoline recall on the federal record as of the publication date of this appendix and the only modern recall expressly framed as a strangulation-hazard recall. Discussed at B.2 — strangulation and at B.1 — CPSC Section 15(b).

Other Recall-History Manufacturers (consolidated)

Aviva Sports (2009 CPSC recall — fall hazard); Jumpking Bazoongi Kids (2017 children’s-product CPSC recall); Vuly (enclosure netting and pole defects across multiple recalls); ALDI “Crane” trampolines (welding/frame US, UK, and Australian recalls); Bravo Sports / Pure Fun / Upper Bounce (enclosure and spring component recalls); Sky Bound (enclosure recall); Springfree (the patented springless-design product addressed in the Australian Queensland Court of Appeal decision Springfree Trampoline Australia Pty Ltd v. Forostenko [2024] QCA 255 — instructive only, not binding in the United States).

C.3 Texas Gulf Coast Refinery and Petrochemical Defendants

BP / British Petroleum (Texas City)

Texas presence: the BP Texas City refinery — 1100 East Bay Road North, Texas City, Texas — was at the time of the March 23, 2005 disaster the largest BP refinery in the United States and one of the largest petroleum refineries in the world. Disaster: the March 23, 2005 hydrocarbon-vapor-cloud ignition during an isomerization-unit restart killed fifteen people and injured more than 170. Civil and regulatory record: approximately $2 billion in civil-litigation payments; OSHA settlement penalties of $87.4 million (2009) plus $21.3 million earlier (combined $50.6 million net settled); $50 million federal environmental-crime fine; $50 million Texas state environmental fine. Investigative authority: the U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s final report (and final-report PDF) is among the most-cited federal industrial-accident investigations in American regulatory history. Industry-standard descendants: the post-disaster refinery-safety regulatory baseline produced API RP 752 (4th edition, January 2024) and API RP 753 (2nd edition, January 2024). Firm history: Ralph Manginello represented workers in the resulting litigation. The Texas City matter anchors the firm’s refinery and petrochemical practice.

Marathon Petroleum (Galveston Bay Refinery)

Texas presence: the Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas City (formerly the BP Texas City refinery — sold to Marathon in 2013). One of the largest United States refineries by capacity. The site is the legal successor to BP at the disaster location and continues as a primary defendant footprint in any current Texas City refinery-incident matter.

ExxonMobil (Baytown Complex)

Texas presence: the ExxonMobil Baytown refinery complex on the north shore of the Houston Ship Channel — one of the largest integrated refinery and petrochemical complexes in the United States. Operating Integrity Management System (OIMS) is the in-house process-safety framework; SHE (Safety, Health and Environment) policies govern day-to-day operations; Journey Management Plans govern oilfield-and-refinery vehicle operations.

Phillips 66

Texas presence: the Sweeny refinery (Brazoria County, Texas) and the Borger refinery (Hutchinson County, Texas Panhandle).

Valero Energy

Texas presence: San Antonio-headquartered. Operates the Houston, Texas City, Three Rivers, and Corpus Christi refineries, among others. The largest independent United States petroleum refiner.

LyondellBasell Industries (Houston Refining)

Texas presence: Houston-headquartered. Operates the Houston Refining facility on the Houston Ship Channel.

Chevron Phillips Chemical

Texas presence: The Woodlands–headquartered. Operates significant petrochemical capacity at Sweeny, Cedar Bayou, Pasadena, and Borger.

Dow Chemical (Freeport)

Texas presence: the Dow Freeport complex (Brazoria County) — among the largest integrated chemical-manufacturing sites in the world.

C.4 Commercial Trucking Carriers and Trucking-Related Corporate Defendants

Werner Enterprises

Headquarters: Omaha, Nebraska. USDOT/MC: 53044. Fleet: approximately 8,000 trucks; nationwide dry van and temperature-controlled. Notable verdicts and settlements: 2021 Florida $1 billion verdict ($100 million compensatory plus $900 million punitive) for the wrongful death of an eighteen-year-old chain-reaction-crash decedent; 2022 Texas $150 million settlement to the family of two children killed in an I-30 crash — reported as the largest 18-wheeler settlement in United States history. The reported HOS and training history is well-documented in plaintiff-side discovery production.

J.B. Hunt Transport

Headquarters: Lowell, Arkansas. USDOT/MC: 72637. Fleet: approximately 12,000 trucks plus 150,000-plus intermodal containers; major I-40 corridor.

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings (Swift; Knight)

Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona. USDOT: 134138 (Swift); 15863 (Knight); merged 2017. Fleet: approximately 23,000 trucks — the largest truckload carrier in North America. Litigation footprint: the prompt source records the chain as having the highest reported incident volume among the major United States carriers; in-house CDL schools have been the subject of plaintiff discovery focus.

Schneider National

Headquarters: Green Bay, Wisconsin. USDOT: 239756. Approximately 9,000 trucks; major intermodal; large bulk and tanker fleet.

XPO Logistics

USDOT: 2179722. Approximately 13,000 trucks; among the largest United States freight brokers; dual carrier-and-broker exposure produces both motor-carrier and broker-negligence claim theories.

Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL)

Headquarters: Thomasville, North Carolina. USDOT: 16740. Approximately 10,000 tractors; 45,000-plus trailers; major LTL operator with 250-plus service centers.

Landstar System / Landstar Ranger

Headquarters: Jacksonville, Florida. Notable verdict: 2021 $730 million Ramsey verdict ($480 million compensatory plus $250 million punitive) — Navy propeller oversize-load haul fatality.

Walmart Transportation

Corporate domicile: Bentonville, Arkansas. Self-insured. Largest private fleet in America. Training and telematics: Smith System driver-behavioral training; DriveCam/Lytx forward and driver-facing video; Qualcomm/Omnitracs telematics; minimum 250,000-mile solo experience requirement. Notable matter: the 2014 Tracy Morgan v. Walmart Transportation settlement, reported in the range of $90 million; co-decedent James McNair was killed when a Walmart driver who had been awake approximately twenty-eight hours rear-ended the plaintiffs’ van on the New Jersey Turnpike. The case made driver fatigue and Hours-of-Service compliance a national issue and produced the discovery-template Smith System / Lytx record now used in plaintiff trucking practice.

Amazon (Amazon Logistics; DSP / Flex)

Corporate domicile: Seattle, Washington. DSP-level USDOTs. Telematics: Mentor app driver-safety scoring; Netradyne 4-camera in-cab system. Insurance structure: DSPs $1 million primary auto policy plus Amazon $5 million contingent excess plus corporate excess. Litigation footprint: multiple wrongful-death and severe-injury actions 2019 through 2025; DSP-control doctrine evolving in plaintiff trucking practice.

FedEx Express; FedEx Ground

Corporate domicile: Memphis, Tennessee. FedEx Express drivers are direct employees of FedEx and the resulting respondeat-superior analysis is conventional. FedEx Ground operates an Independent Service Provider (ISP) model with $5 million contingent contractual coverage above ISP-level coverage; the resulting two-track claim development requires careful early evaluation.

UPS (United Parcel Service)

Corporate domicile: Atlanta, Georgia. Revenue: $91 billion (2023). Self-insured. Training framework: “340 Methods” and “5 Seeing Habits”; Integrad driver-training program. UPS direct-employer status produces the cleanest commercial-trucking respondeat-superior claim development among the major delivery-fleet operators.

Other Trucking and Trucking-Related Defendants

Wabash National (trailer manufacturer — $462 million 2024 Missouri underride verdict, addressed at A.1 Wabash National $462M). Daimler ($160 million 2024 Alabama rollover verdict, addressed at A.1 Street v. Daimler). Top Auto Express ($411 million 2020 Florida pileup verdict, addressed at A.1 Top Auto Express). Farmdog Trucking (Illinois — $6.05 million verdict). Werner-comparable Texas-domiciled carriers serving the I-10, I-20, I-30, and I-35 corridors; Sysco (Houston, Texas — food-distribution private fleet); H-E-B (San Antonio, Texas — one of the largest Texas-headquartered private fleets); Halliburton (Houston, Texas — IVMS GPS, harsh-braking, seatbelt telematics on all vehicles; pump trucks routinely 80,000-plus pounds); Schlumberger / SLB (Curaçao incorporated, Houston principal place of business — wireline trucks routinely carry radioactive HazMat); Baker Hughes (Houston, Texas); Pioneer Natural Resources (Midland, Texas — acquired by ExxonMobil 2024 for $60 billion; peak operations included 50–100-plus water-truck trips per well per day); Diamondback Energy (Midland, Texas — largest pure-play Permian operator post-Pioneer); Devon Energy (Oklahoma City); EOG Resources (Houston — dominant Eagle Ford operator); Plains All American (crude-oil transport); Energy Transfer (Dallas — pipeline construction); Kinder Morgan (Houston — pipeline / midstream).

C.5 Maritime Employers and Jones Act Defendants

The maritime defendant universe is structured around vessel ownership, employment status, and the seaman / longshoreman line drawn by Chandris v. Latsis. Texas Gulf Coast maritime activity centers on the Houston Ship Channel, the Beaumont / Port Arthur ports, the Galveston ports, and the Port of Corpus Christi; offshore activity centers on the Outer Continental Shelf in the western Gulf of Mexico.

Categories of Maritime Defendants

Drilling contractors operating jack-up rigs, semisubmersibles, and drillships in Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Vessel owners and operators of supply boats, crew boats, and offshore service vessels. Tugboat and pushboat operators. Barge owners and operators. Commercial-fishing-vessel owners (the highest-fatality-rate occupational category in BLS data). Tanker operators. Containership operators. Cruise-line operators (in vessel-passenger personal-injury matters distinct from Jones Act seaman matters). Ship repair facilities and shipyard operators (the LHWCA-coverage line). Stevedoring companies. The Manginello Law Firm has documented Jones Act recovery in the $2 million-plus range for a maritime worker’s severe back injury sustained while lifting cargo on a ship; the matter rested on the unseaworthiness theory in addition to Jones Act negligence.

Foundational Maritime Cases

Status: Chandris v. Latsis (seaman thirty-percent rule of thumb); McDermott v. Wilander (rejecting the historical “aid in navigation” test). Damages: Miles v. Apex Marine (pecuniary-damages limitation for non-seafarer wrongful death); Dutra Group v. Batterton (no punitive damages in unseaworthiness). Maintenance and cure: Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (punitive damages available for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure).

C.6 Educational Institutions and Greek-Letter Organizations with Documented Hazing Incidents

University of Houston (Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu Chapter)

Active matter: Bermudez v. University of Houston, Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, Beta Nu Chapter, et al. — filed November 21, 2025 in Harris County District Court; allegations described in detail at the case entry. Institutional response: November 6, 2025 — Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters suspended the Beta Nu chapter; November 14, 2025 — chapter members voted to surrender the charter and the chapter was permanently shut down. The University of Houston issued a public statement calling the alleged conduct “deeply disturbing.” Defendants named include the University of Houston; the University of Houston System Board of Regents; Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, Inc. (national); Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu housing corporation; and thirteen individual fraternity leaders and members.

Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, Inc. (National)

Documented chapter incidents: Beta Nu Chapter at the University of Houston (the active Bermudez matter); Andrew Coffey at Florida State University (2017 alcohol-poisoning fatality); Adrian Heideman at California State University, Chico (2000). The pattern of chapter incidents across multiple universities supports a national-organization-as-defendant theory in any Pi Kappa Phi chapter matter.

Other Greek-Letter National Organizations with Documented Litigated Incidents

Beta Theta Pi — Timothy Piazza death at Penn State (2017; settlements reportedly exceeding $110 million; Pennsylvania legislative response: the Tim Piazza Antihazing Law of 2018). Phi Delta Theta — Maxwell Gruver death at LSU (2017; Louisiana legislative response: the Max Gruver Act of 2018). Pi Kappa Alpha — Stone Foltz death at Bowling Green State University (Ohio, 2021; Ohio legislative response: Collin’s Law of 2021). David Bogenberger death at Northern Illinois University. Sigma Alpha Epsilon — Carson Starkey death at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (2008); Brian Sanders death at Texas A&M (1997); Noah Domingo death at UC Irvine (2019); the national organization eliminated pledging in 2014. Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) — Danny Santulli severe injury at the University of Missouri. Pi Delta Psi — Chun Hsien “Michael” Deng death at a Pocono Mountains pledge retreat while a Baruch College student (2013); the organization itself was criminally convicted of involuntary manslaughter, hindering apprehension, and hazing — one of the very few American fraternal organizations to face criminal organizational liability. Sigma Chi — College of Charleston $10 million-plus verdict. Kappa Sigma — Chad Meredith death at the University of Miami ($12.6 million verdict; Florida legislative response: the Chad Meredith Act); Kappa Sigma — Louisiana Lafayette 2016. Delta Kappa Epsilon — Nolte McElroy death at the University of Texas at Austin (1928 — the foundational Texas hazing-fatality matter, electrocution mechanism). Kappa Alpha Society — Mortimer Leggett death at Cornell University (1873) — the first documented hazing fatality in American academic history.

Non-Greek-Letter Hazing Cases

Florida A&M University Marching 100 — Robert D. Champion Jr. death (2011, “Crossing Bus C” beating ritual); the leading non-Greek-letter American hazing case and the doctrinal anchor for hazing-liability extension to athletic teams, marching bands, ROTC, military academies, and any organization conducting initiation rituals.

C.7 Government and Investigative Agencies Cited

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

The federal agency administering the Consumer Product Safety Act, the substantial-product-hazard-reporting framework at 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b), the recall record, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). Public-facing portals: CPSC recall hub; NEISS; SaferProducts.gov.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

The Department of Transportation agency regulating commercial-motor-vehicle safety. Promulgates the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. Parts 350–399. Public-facing portals: SAFER Company Snapshot; Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

The Department of Labor agency administering federal workplace-safety regulation. Critical in refinery, petrochemical, construction, and general-industry injury matters. Severe Injury Reports public dashboard: OSHA SIR.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)

The independent federal agency investigating major chemical-industry incidents in the United States. The CSB BP Texas City final report remains the modern benchmark federal industrial-accident final report.

United States Coast Guard (USCG)

The federal maritime-safety regulator. The USCG Marine Casualty Reports portal is the principal source for marine-casualty investigation files in any Jones Act, unseaworthiness, or general-maritime case.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

The Department of Transportation agency administering federal motor-vehicle safety regulation and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). FARS landing: NHTSA FARS.

Investigative-Journalism Outlets Cited

Boston 25 News “25 Investigates” — Massachusetts Sky Zone EMS-call pattern (224 EMS calls over seven years across five Massachusetts Sky Zone locations; internal worker manual instruction “BE AWARE OF THE PADS” with no equivalent customer warning). 6ABC Philadelphia Action News — Delaware Valley 911-dispatch records (300-plus 911 dispatch calls to fourteen trampoline parks in approximately three and a half years). KPIX / Bay Area local reporting — at least seventy-three emergency 911 responses to a dozen Bay Area parks over a two-year period. ABC15 Phoenix and the Arizona Republic — post-Ty’s-Law reporting gap in Arizona. KIRO Seattle — Washington L&I worker-violation series at Sky Zone Tukwila and Vancouver. First Alert 4 (St. Louis) — November 2025 Sky Zone Ballwin shooting incident (negligent-security predicate). Click2Houston, ABC13 Houston, and Hoodline — coverage of Bermudez v. UH.

Non-Profit Research and Standards Organizations Cited

American Academy of Pediatrics — the 2012 trampoline-safety policy statement reaffirmed in 2025; policy article. Hank Nuwer — the canonical national hazing-deaths database covering documented incidents from 1838 through the present, accessible at hanknuwer.com (1838–1999 archive at hazing-deaths; 2000–present at hazing-destroying-young-lives). StopHazing.org research hub. Hazing Prevention Network (the rebranded HazingPrevention.org) at hazingpreventionnetwork.org. Clery Center — the campus-safety nonprofit at clerycenter.org. ASTM International — the consensus voluntary standards organization. American Petroleum Institute — the refining and petrochemical recommended-practice standards body. Cornell Legal Information Institute — the free legal-information project at law.cornell.edu. CourtListener — the Free Law Project free case-law portal at courtlistener.com. Justia — the free case-law and statutes portal at law.justia.com.

Volume D — Injury Taxonomy (Bilingual)

Volume D presents the firm’s injury taxonomy along three orthogonal axes: by body system (D.1), by mechanism of injury (D.2), and by industry context (D.3). The three views describe the same underlying universe of injuries from different angles. Volume D.4 collects the firm’s documented settlement-range brackets organized by injury severity and by industry, drawn from the firm’s own resolved matters and from the public verdict and settlement record described in Volume A.1. The brackets describe the historical record only; they are not predictions of recovery in any individual case, and no recovery is guaranteed in any specific matter.

D.1 By Body System

Neurological / Neurológico

Traumatic brain injury, mild through severe; diffuse axonal injury; chronic traumatic encephalopathy; concussion; post-concussive syndrome; anoxic and hypoxic-ischemic brain injury; intracranial hemorrhage (subarachnoid, subdural, epidural, intraparenchymal); seizure disorder secondary to brain injury; peripheral neuropathy; complex regional pain syndrome. Anchor cases: Cosmic Jump $11.485M (TBI plus seizures plus skull fracture); Collins arbitration $15.6M (cervical-level quadriplegia is a neurological-system injury for taxonomy purposes); the Manginello firm’s $5M+ workplace TBI settlement.

Spinal / Espinal

Cervical spine fracture (C1–C7) with quadriplegia; thoracic spine fracture with paraplegia; lumbar spine fracture; cauda equina syndrome; spinal-cord contusion; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disc herniation; vertebral compression fracture. ASIA Impairment Scale A–E. Anchor cases: Collins (cervical complete); Seitz / AirMaxx ($3M cervical SCI mediation); Ty Thomasson / SkyPark Phoenix (five cervical vertebrae); Ric Swezey (C2 fatal).

Orthopedic / Ortopédico

Femur fracture (the most-common pediatric trampoline injury); tibia and fibula fracture (compound, comminuted, spiral, oblique, transverse); pilon fracture of distal tibia; Salter-Harris growth-plate fractures I–V; humerus fracture; radius and ulna fracture; clavicle fracture; scapula fracture; pelvic fracture; hip fracture and dislocation; PCL/ACL/MCL/LCL knee-ligament injury; meniscus tear; ankle fracture and dislocation; foot fracture; wrist fracture; rib fracture; sternal fracture. Anchor cases: Flight Deck Fort Worth (Salter-Harris of both tibia and fibula); Summit Adventure Park Spring Hill ($680,656 femur); Get Air Pennsylvania ($412,445 PCL); Kansas pilon $1M; Knight Georgia $3.5M (open tibia/fibula); Vogt / Rebounderz Edison ($1.25M bilateral leg fractures from spring entrapment).

Internal / Abdominal / Interno / Abdominal

Splenic laceration and rupture; liver laceration and rupture; renal contusion and laceration; pancreatic injury; intestinal perforation and injury; mesenteric injury; diaphragmatic rupture; aortic injury; pneumothorax and hemothorax; cardiac contusion. Mechanisms: motor-vehicle collision, fall from height, blunt-force trauma, refinery blast, crush injury.

Cutaneous / Burns / Cutáneo / Quemaduras

First, second, third, and fourth-degree burns; thermal burns; chemical burns; electrical burns; inhalation injury; degloving injury; complex laceration; scarring (linear, hypertrophic, keloid); disfigurement. Severity scaled by total body surface area (TBSA), Lund-Browder chart, and Parkland fluid-resuscitation formula. Refinery and petrochemical-incident matters frequently produce severe burn injuries with prolonged ICU and rehabilitation courses.

Asphyxia / Anoxic / Asfixia / Anóxico

Strangulation (anti-, peri-, post-); positional asphyxia; mechanical asphyxia; chemical asphyxia (carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane displacement); drowning (dry, wet, secondary); aspiration pneumonia; hair entrapment with scalp avulsion. Anchor mechanisms: Bermudez hose-spraying-similar-to-waterboarding allegations; CPSC SEGMART 2026 strangulation-hazard recall; refinery confined-space cases.

Psychological / Mental Health / Psicológico / Salud Mental

Post-traumatic stress disorder; major depressive disorder secondary to injury; anxiety disorder; sleep disturbance; chronic-pain syndrome; secondary traumatization of family members; mental anguish (Texas non-economic damages category); loss of enjoyment of life. Anchor frameworks: DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria; PTSD diagnostic criteria as applied to motor-vehicle, refinery, and assault matters.

D.2 By Mechanism of Injury

Blunt-force trauma

The largest single mechanism category in this firm’s practice. Includes motor-vehicle collisions, trampoline-court collisions, falls from height, falls onto unyielding surfaces, and intentional assault.

Fall from height

The principal mechanism in trampoline-park climbing-wall, rope-course, and aerial-platform cases (Lakhani / Sugar Land Urban Air; Lu / Altitude Gastonia; Urban Air Tennessee rope course); in construction-injury matters; in refinery scaffold matters.

Crush injury

Industrial, refinery, agricultural, and construction. Risk of compartment syndrome and rhabdomyolysis. Leading cause of trapped-worker fatality in confined-space incidents.

Entrapment

Foot entrapment in trampoline mat-frame gaps; hair entrapment in springs and ventilation; clothing entrapment on netting; equipment entrapment in industrial machinery. Anchor: the Wareham Massachusetts Sky Zone Boston foot-entrapment matter.

Asphyxia

Positional, mechanical, chemical, and by drowning. See D.1 — asphyxia / anoxic.

Chemical exposure

Refinery hydrocarbon and benzene exposure; petrochemical-process leak; HazMat trucking-cargo release; hydrogen-sulfide exposure in oilfield work. Long-latency-period claim assessment under the Texas discovery rule.

Thermal

Burn injury from refinery flash fire, vapor-cloud ignition (the BP Texas City mechanism), industrial steam release, and motor-vehicle fuel fire.

Electrical

Industrial, refinery, construction (overhead-power-line contact), and oilfield. Leading cause of cardiac arrest in workplace fatalities.

Blast / overpressure

Refinery and petrochemical (the BP Texas City mechanism). Primary blast (overpressure injury to lungs, ears, hollow organs); secondary blast (penetrating fragment injury); tertiary blast (impact with ground or fixed object); quaternary blast (burn, inhalation, crush).

Motor-vehicle collision

Passenger-vehicle, commercial-trucking, motorcycle, bicycle, pedestrian. The largest single category of personal-injury practice generally and a substantial component of this firm’s practice. Discussed throughout this appendix.

Drowning

Dry drowning, wet drowning, secondary (delayed) drowning. Maritime, swimming-facility, and inland-recreational cases. Anchor cases include the Lakhani harness-attachment fall (a fall-onto-mat injury, not a drowning) and various pool, lake, and beach matters in the firm’s premises-liability practice.

Intentional assault

Battery in hazing matters; intentional acts of co-patrons in trampoline parks (the Anthony Duran case); inter-patron altercation in commercial recreational facilities. Distinct from negligence claims and produces a different insurance-coverage analysis.

D.3 By Industry Context

Trampoline-park pediatric pattern

The age-mixed double-bounce mechanism. Single-occupancy-rule violation. Foam-pit head-first landing. Climbing-wall harness-failure fall. Spring-pad entrapment. Rope-course fall. Go-kart attraction (the Riddle case). Medical anchor: pediatric femur fracture, Salter-Harris growth-plate fracture, traumatic brain injury, cervical spinal-cord injury.

Hazing rhabdomyolysis-and-alcohol-poisoning pattern

The two anchor pediatric / young-adult mechanisms. Rhabdomyolysis from extended high-intensity exertion (the Bermudez mechanism). Acute alcohol intoxication and aspiration (the Foltz, Gruver, Coffey mechanisms). Blunt-force trauma from physical attack (the Piazza, Champion, Deng mechanisms). Concurrent sexual assault triggering Title IX overlay.

Commercial-trucking under-ride and rear-end pattern

Commercial-vehicle rear-end and under-ride incidents disproportionately produce decapitation and severe upper-body injury (the Wabash National $462M Missouri verdict). HOS-violation fatigue (the Tracy Morgan / Walmart Transportation matter). Jackknife and rollover (the Street v. Daimler quadriplegia matter). Cargo-shift and overload (oilfield trucking).

Maritime / Jones Act pattern

Slip-and-fall on deck; cargo-handling lifting injury (the firm’s $2M+ back-injury matter); fall through hatch; struck-by suspended load; fall overboard; vessel-collision injury; unseaworthy-condition injury. Statutory and decisional framework: Jones Act, LHWCA, OCSLA, DOHSA, general maritime law. Damages structure governed by Miles v. Apex Marine and Dutra Group v. Batterton.

Refinery and petrochemical pattern

Vapor-cloud ignition (BP Texas City). Hydrocarbon flash fire. Hydrogen-sulfide exposure. Confined-space asphyxiation. Pump and compressor explosion. Tank-rupture release. Lockout-tagout failure. Falling-object struck-by. Hot-work flash fire. The post-Texas-City regulatory baseline appears in API RP 752 and RP 753. Investigative reference: the CSB BP final report.

Construction and workplace pattern

Falls from height (the leading construction fatality cause). Crane and rigging incidents. Trench collapse. Electrical contact. Struck-by falling objects. Lockout-tagout failure. Roof and scaffold falls. The Manginello firm’s $5M+ workplace TBI matter falls within this category.

D.4 Settlement-Range Brackets and Valuation Context

The brackets below represent The Manginello Law Firm’s documented settlement and verdict ranges by injury type, as drawn from the firm’s resolved matters and from the public verdict and settlement record. These brackets describe the historical record only. Texas market comparison ranges follow the firm’s brackets where comparable industry data is available. No recovery is guaranteed in any individual case.

Catastrophic injury

Traumatic brain injury (moderate to severe)

Firm range: $1,548,000 to $9,838,000+. Cognitive impairment, personality changes, long-term care. Cosmic Jump $11.485M includes TBI plus skull fracture plus seizures.

Spinal cord injury

Firm range: $4,770,000 to $25,880,000+. Quadriplegia commands the highest settlement bracket in personal-injury practice. Public-verdict reference: Damion Collins / Urban Air Overland Park AAA arbitration $15,600,000 net (gross approximately $19.5M); Anthony Seitz / AirMaxx $3,000,000 mediation.

Amputation

Firm range: $1,945,000 to $8,630,000. Texas market comparison: $500,000 to $2,000,000. Prosthetics, lifetime rehabilitation, vocational impairment. Firm’s documented $3.8M+ amputation matter (partial leg amputation following car accident with medical complication / staph infection during treatment).

Wrongful death

Firm range: $1,910,000 to $9,520,000. Texas market comparison (single fatality, primary earner, young victim): $1,000,000 to $5,000,000+. Trucking wrongful death (significant earning capacity): $3,000,000 to $10,000,000+. Trucking multiple fatalities (same family): $5,000,000 to $15,000,000+. Trucking catastrophic (egregious negligence): $10,000,000 to $20,000,000+. Trucking punitive (gross negligence / malice): potentially unlimited within the constitutional due-process framework. Public verdict reference: Werner Enterprises $1B Florida; Werner $150M Texas settlement; Landstar Ranger $730M.

Serious injury

Herniated disc requiring surgery

Firm range: $346,000 to $1,205,000. Texas market comparison: $100,000 to $300,000. Multiple-disc involvement increases value materially.

Broken bones requiring surgery

Firm range: $132,000 to $328,000. Complex fractures and hardware-installation cases sit at the upper end.

Internal organ damage

Highly variable. Depends on organ, surgical course, lifetime sequelae, and ability to prove specific causation.

Moderate injury

Soft-tissue injury (whiplash, sprains, strains)

Firm range: $15,000 to $60,000. Texas market comparison: approximately $15,000 to $20,000. Substantial firm-vs.-market premium reflects the firm’s documented willingness to litigate rather than accept lowball offers.

Moderate back/neck injuries (non-surgical)

Firm range: $50,000 to $200,000. Texas market comparison: $50,000 to $100,000.

Scarring and disfigurement

Highly variable by location, severity, and visibility. Facial scarring commands the highest non-economic recovery.

Construction-specific brackets

Minor construction injury

$50,000 to $150,000.

Moderate construction injury (surgery required)

$150,000 to $500,000.

Severe / life-changing construction injury

$500,000 to several million.

Construction wrongful death

$1,000,000 to $10,000,000+.

Texas Tort Claims Act caps (governmental defendants)

Section 101.023 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code caps state-government tort liability at $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence. Local-government tort liability is capped at $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. The caps apply to a defined and limited class of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act and do not extend to private-defendant matters.

Volume E — Jurisdictional Matrix (50 States)

Volume E is the fifty-state-plus-District-of-Columbia matrix on the legal questions that most often govern a Texas-anchored personal-injury practice handling out-of-state matters. Each subsection below presents the relevant rule per jurisdiction, the controlling case or statute, and the current operative version. Where the law is unsettled, the entry says so. Where the law has recently changed, the entry dates the change.

E.1 Minor-Waiver Enforceability

Whether a parent’s pre-injury waiver of a minor child’s tort claims is enforceable. The plaintiff-friendly tier holds the parental waiver unenforceable; the park-friendly tier permits the waiver in defined contexts; the unsettled tier is jurisdiction-dependent and fact-specific.

Plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions (parental pre-injury waiver of minor’s claim is unenforceable)

Pennsylvania (Santiago/Shultz, Pa. Sup. Ct. 2025; arbitration-clause-specific holding); Tennessee (Blackwell, Tenn. Ct. App. 2017); New Jersey (Hojnowski, N.J. 2006 — substantive tort claim cannot be waived; arbitration forum may be); Iowa (Galloway, Iowa 2010); Michigan (Woodman, Mich. 2010 for commercial; nonprofit youth-recreation carve-out at M.C.L. § 700.5109); Utah (Hawkins, Utah 2001); Washington (Scott, Wash. 1992); Florida (Kirton, Fla. 2008 — negligence claims cannot be waived; “inherent risk” claims may be); Connecticut (Hanks, Conn. 2005); Louisiana (Alicea, La. 2016 on adhesionary clauses); New York (NY Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-326); Virginia (Hiett v. Lake Barcroft, 1992); Wisconsin (Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005); West Virginia (case-law); Hawaii; Montana.

Park-friendly or nuanced jurisdictions

Texas (Cerna, Tex. 2025; Geter, Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024; Trevino, Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024 — direct-benefits-estoppel binds non-signing minor; non-signatory carve-out preserves court-venue claims); Maryland (BJ’s Wholesale Club, Md. 2013 — free supervised commercial play area enforceable; paid-park distinguishability remains); Colorado (C.R.S. § 13-22-107 permits parental waiver for recreational activities — legislatively reversed Cooper v. Aspen Skiing); Ohio, California, Massachusetts (parental waivers enforceable in narrower nonprofit / youth-sports contexts only).

Unsettled or split jurisdictions

Many states have not squarely addressed parental pre-injury waivers of minor tort claims in the commercial-recreational context. In those jurisdictions, plaintiff counsel should (a) argue by analogy from the closest neighbor state’s rule (Northeastern plaintiff-friendly cluster vs. Southeastern park-friendly cluster); (b) frame the claim as gross negligence to avail of the near-universal waiver carve-out; (c) attack clause-formation issues (signer authority, comprehension, Spanish-language formation under Delfingen, adhesion under Tunkl, camouflaged language under Alicea); and (d) pursue franchisor and manufacturer separately as non-signatories.

E.2 Parent-Arbitration Authority over a Minor’s Claim

Whether a parent may bind a non-signing minor child to arbitration. The 2025 Texas / Pennsylvania split is the modern doctrinal divide.

Parent-can-bind-minor-to-arbitration jurisdictions

Texas (Cerna, Tex. 2025 — delegation-clause routing; Geter, Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024 — direct-benefits-estoppel; Trevino, Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024 — companion to Geter); New Jersey (Hojnowski, N.J. 2006; Johnson, N.J. App. 2021; Lawrence, N.J. App. 2021; Richardson, N.J. App. 2021); Missouri (Karlin v. UATP Springfield, Mo. 2025).

Parent-cannot-bind-minor-to-arbitration jurisdictions

Pennsylvania (Santiago/Shultz, Pa. Sup. Ct. 2025); Tennessee (Blackwell, Tenn. Ct. App. 2017); plus most plaintiff-friendly minor-waiver states by extension because if the substantive waiver fails the arbitration clause routing the substantive claim often fails too on adhesion-and-formation grounds.

Litigation-conduct-waiver doctrine (independent of forum-versus-substance)

New Jersey (Coppi, N.J. App. 2025); federal-court application varies by circuit. Plaintiff counsel should pursue aggressive discovery from the moment of filing in any state recognizing the doctrine.

E.3 Statute of Limitations and Minor-Tolling Rules

The statute of limitations on personal-injury claims runs from the date of injury subject to the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and minor-tolling exceptions. The Texas rule is two years from injury under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003, with minor tolling under § 16.001 until the minor turns eighteen.

One-year statutes of limitations

Kentucky; Louisiana (one year prescriptive period for personal-injury claims); Tennessee.

Two-year statutes of limitations

Texas; Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida (recently reduced from four years to two years for general negligence; verify current operative version on case-by-case basis); Georgia; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Maryland (verify); Minnesota (six years for personal injury under M.S.A. § 541.05; verify); Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia; Wyoming.

Three-year statutes of limitations

Arkansas; Massachusetts; Mississippi; Montana; New York; North Carolina; Wisconsin; Wisconsin (3-year personal-injury); District of Columbia.

Longer statutes of limitations

Maine (six years); North Dakota (six years); Nebraska (four years for personal injury). Minor-tolling rules vary by state — most states toll the statute of limitations until the minor reaches majority, often plus one or two additional years. Minor-tolling rules typically do not extend products-liability statutes of repose, which run from the date of first sale.

Wrongful-death statute of limitations

Often shorter than personal-injury statutes of limitations and frequently strictly construed. The Texas wrongful-death statute is two years from death under CPRC § 71.002 read with § 16.003. Verify each state’s current rule before relying on the survey above for any specific matter.

E.4 Damages Caps

Damages caps vary widely by jurisdiction and by claim type. The leading cap categories are non-economic damages (pain, suffering, mental anguish), punitive / exemplary damages, and medical-malpractice-specific caps.

Non-economic damages caps

Most states do not cap non-economic damages in motor-vehicle and general personal-injury cases. Caps that do apply tend to be medical-malpractice-specific (California MICRA at $250,000; Texas medical-malpractice cap at $250,000 per provider with $750,000 aggregate under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.301). Maryland applies a non-economic cap to general personal-injury claims (currently approximately $920,000 with annual inflation adjustment). Several states’ non-economic caps have been struck as unconstitutional under state-constitutional rationales (Florida medmal cap struck; Georgia medmal cap struck). Verify each state’s current operative statute before any individual matter.

Punitive / exemplary damages caps

Texas: greater of two times economic damages plus an amount equal to noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000, or $200,000, under CPRC Chapter 41. The cap does not apply to certain enumerated felonies. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) imposes a federal due-process ceiling on punitive damages, generally not exceeding a single-digit ratio of compensatory to punitive damages.

Statutory immunity caps

State sovereign-immunity-waiver caps under state Tort Claims Acts (Texas: $250,000 / $500,000 state; $100,000 / $300,000 local). Federal Tort Claims Act applies to federal-government defendants.

E.5 Comparative-Fault Rules

Pure-comparative jurisdictions

Plaintiff recovers regardless of percentage of fault; recovery reduced by plaintiff’s percentage. Includes California, Florida (recently moved from pure to modified — verify), Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, South Dakota.

Modified comparative jurisdictions — fifty-percent bar

Plaintiff recovers if at fifty percent or less; barred at fifty-one percent or greater. Includes Texas under CPRC Chapter 33; Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia.

Modified comparative jurisdictions — fifty-one-percent bar

Plaintiff recovers if at fifty percent or less of fault. Includes Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Contributory-negligence jurisdictions

Any plaintiff fault, however small, bars all recovery. Survives only in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

E.6 Hazing Criminal-Statute Strength Tier

Forty-four states have anti-hazing statutes as of the publication date. Strength tiers measure the severity of criminal penalties available, the breadth of organizational liability provisions, and the recent legislative response to documented fatal incidents.

Felony-tier with enhanced penalties (modern post-fatality reform)

Pennsylvania — Tim Piazza Antihazing Law (2018, post-Piazza); aggravated hazing felony charge; organizational-liability provision. Louisiana — Max Gruver Act (2018, post-Gruver); felony-tier offense; organizational and institutional liability. Ohio — Collin’s Law (2021, post-Foltz); felony-tier offense for hazing involving forced consumption of alcohol or drugs. Florida — Chad Meredith Act; increased penalties for hazing involving serious bodily injury.

Felony-tier (without recent post-fatality enhancement)

California, New York, Illinois, Texas (under Tex. Educ. Code § 37.152, with felony enhancement for serious bodily injury or death), Missouri, Massachusetts, Indiana, Virginia, Washington (verify current operative version per state).

Misdemeanor tier

Most other states with anti-hazing statutes treat first-offense hazing as a misdemeanor with felony enhancement for serious bodily injury or death.

No anti-hazing statute

Six states have no anti-hazing statute as of the publication date; in those jurisdictions, hazing prosecutions proceed under general criminal statutes (assault, battery, manslaughter, reckless endangerment) without the hazing-specific enhancement framework. Civil hazing claims proceed under negligence, vicarious-liability, and Title IX theories regardless of criminal-statute presence.

E.7 Greek-Organization Vicarious-Liability Rules

The doctrinal foundation is Furek v. University of Delaware (1991, university supervisory duty) and Knoll v. University of Nebraska (1999, third-party criminal-conduct foreseeability). Application against the national fraternal headquarters varies by state and by the documented control / supervisory relationship between the national and the chapter. Texas applies vicarious liability to organizations under Tex. Educ. Code § 37.153. Most states permit civil claims against the national organization on negligent-supervision and negligent-monitoring theories where the national had actual or constructive notice of the chapter’s hazing pattern.

E.8 Premises-Liability Invitee / Licensee / Trespasser Regime

Most states retain the traditional three-tier classification. Some states have abolished the distinction in favor of a unitary reasonable-care standard (California; Florida for most categories; Hawaii; Massachusetts; New York; Rhode Island; Tennessee; Utah). Texas retains the traditional three-tier classification with the open-and-obvious-condition doctrine. Critical in trampoline-park, retail-store, hotel, restaurant, and apartment-complex matters.

E.9 Dram-Shop and Social-Host Liability

Dram-shop liability — the civil liability of an alcohol provider that serves alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person who later causes injury — varies widely. Texas dram-shop liability is governed by Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02 with a “providing alcoholic beverages to a person who was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others” standard. Social-host liability for serving alcohol to a non-employee guest varies by state, with the most-restrictive jurisdictions barring social-host liability altogether and the most-permissive (New Jersey) recognizing significant social-host duty. Critical in fraternity-hazing-with-alcohol-service matters and in trampoline-park and amusement-park matters that include in-house bar service.

Volume F — Statistics and Empirical Record

Volume F collects the empirical record that frames every catastrophic-injury case in this firm’s practice. The figures are drawn from federal agencies (CPSC NEISS, FMCSA Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts, NHTSA FARS, OSHA Severe Injury Reports, CSB final reports, USCG Marine Casualty Reports), peer-reviewed medical literature (the American Academy of Pediatrics and the journal Pediatrics), the canonical national hazing-deaths database maintained by Hank Nuwer, and the public verdict and settlement record described in Volume A.1. Where a number is approximate or contested, the entry says so. Where a figure has been challenged or superseded, the entry dates the change. Statistics describe the historical and empirical record only; they do not predict outcomes in any individual matter.

F.1 Trampoline-Park Verdict Trajectory (2012 → 2025)

The modern trampoline-park nuclear-verdict era runs from approximately 2012 through the publication date of this appendix. The trajectory shows sustained acceleration in both the size of plaintiff recoveries and the frequency of verdicts above the $1 million, $10 million, and $100 million thresholds. The trajectory has been driven by three forces operating in parallel: the documentation of catastrophic pediatric and adult injuries at commercial trampoline parks; the federal and state regulatory record (ASTM F2970, IATP voluntary standards, state amusement-ride statutes); and the appellate-court record on parental-waiver and arbitration-clause enforceability discussed in Volume A.1 and Volume E.1.

Anchor data points (chronological)

2012 — Ty Thomasson cervical-fracture fatality at SkyPark Phoenix; no civil suit; produced Arizona’s “Ty’s Law” (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 5-1101 et seq.), the first state-level commercial-trampoline-park regulatory regime in the United States.

2013 (injury) — 2018-2019 (verdict) — Menchaca v. Cosmic Jump (Harris County, Texas): $11,485,000 ($5,485,000 compensatory + $6,000,000 punitive). The largest reported jury verdict against a United States commercial trampoline park as of the publication date.

2017 — Blackwell v. Sky High Sports (Tenn. Ct. App.) struck the Sky High parental waiver and the embedded California forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses. The case was the modern doctrinal pivot — the first United States appellate decision to strike three trampoline-park-waiver clauses in a single opinion.

2019 — Lu / Altitude Gastonia (NC): twelve-year-old climbing-wall fatality; pre-litigation public “human error” admission and removal of the climbing wall by the franchisee. Settlement amount not publicly disclosed.

2021 — Collins / Urban Air Overland Park (KS) birthday-party Wipe-Out backflip cervical-spinal-cord injury; the eventual award arrived in arbitration in September 2023. 2021 plaintiff-side appellate cluster: Gayles (NJ App.); Johnson, Lawrence, and Richardson (NJ App.).

September 14, 2023 — Collins arbitration award: $15,600,000 net (gross approximately $19,500,000 reduced by 20% comparative fault). UATP Management LLC absorbed forty percent of the gross award. Arbitrator Thomas Bender held the signed waiver “not legally enforceable.” The largest reported arbitration award in commercial-trampoline-park history.

2023 — Knight / Georgia trampoline park: $3,500,000 jury verdict (forty-five-minute deliberation; spoliation-of-surveillance adverse-inference instruction). Summit Adventure Park Spring Hill / Tampa: $680,656 verdict (Wipeout-arm rotating-beam attraction). Get Air Pennsylvania: $412,445 verdict (PCL avulsion fracture).

2024 — Vogt / Rebounderz Edison (NJ): $1,250,000 settlement (exposed-springs known hazard). Beaumont Adventure Park v. Geter (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] September 12, 2024) and Bite Entertainment v. Trevino (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024) — Texas direct-benefits-estoppel rule applied to non-signing minors.

2025 — Three landmark appellate rulings within thirteen weeks: Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC (Tex. May 23, 2025) — Texas Supreme Court applies federal delegation-clause doctrine; Santiago / Shultz (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2025) — Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds parent cannot bind minor or non-signing spouse to arbitration; Karlin v. UATP Springfield (Mo. 2025) — Missouri Supreme Court enforces delegation clause. The 2025 jurisdictional split between Texas + Missouri (park-friendly) and Pennsylvania + Tennessee (plaintiff-friendly) is the modern doctrinal divide.

2025 — Coppi v. Urban Air (NJ App. Div.): litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration. Plaintiff-side procedural counter-weapon to the federal delegation-clause framework. Kansas pilon $1,000,000 policy-limits settlement (September 2025). Emma Riddle / Urban Air Port St. Lucie (December 2025) — six-year-old wrongful death in a go-kart attraction; family preparing legal action.

Aggregate trajectory

The trajectory from 2013 to 2025 is unmistakable: a $11.485 million Texas jury verdict in 2013-era injury; a $15.6 million arbitration award in 2021-era injury (and 2023-era award); single-digit-million settlements in 2024 and 2025; and the ongoing 2025 wave of appellate rulings reshaping the doctrine in real time. Plaintiff trampoline-park practice is in a sustained nuclear-verdict trajectory; insurers know this; counsel should price cases accordingly. The trajectory is a market signal — not a guaranteed outcome in any specific matter.

F.2 Pediatric Trampoline-Injury Data (CPSC NEISS, AAP, NEISS-AIP)

The pediatric trampoline-injury record is documented across three principal federal and academic sources: the CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS, the nationally-representative emergency-department-based product-injury surveillance system), the American Academy of Pediatrics policy literature, and the journal Pediatrics.

Aggregate emergency-department visits

Approximately 300,000 medically-attended trampoline injuries occur annually across all venues in the United States, with the majority arising from backyard / residential use. Approximately 100,000 to 115,000 of those injuries are coded under the NEISS product code 1233 and treated in hospital emergency departments each year. Average ED visit cost approximately $1,500 to $2,000. Catastrophic cervical spinal-cord injury produces lifetime medical costs in excess of $5,000,000 per case.

Commercial-park ED-visit growth

Trampoline-park-specific emergency-department visits grew from approximately 581 in 2010 to approximately 6,932 in 2014 — an approximately twelvefold increase in four years. CPSC-NEISS aggregate data covering 2014 through 2018 records growth from approximately 6,200 (2014) to approximately 19,300 (2018) — an approximately 211% increase over four years. The American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 policy statement, reaffirmed in 2025, notes that ER visits arising from trampoline-park injuries increased nearly 1,100% over a documented four-year reporting window. AAP policy article.

Severity comparison

Per published academic literature (Kasmire 2016 / Pediatrics), trampoline-park injuries are on average more serious than home-trampoline injuries; trampoline-park injuries are more likely to involve lower-extremity dislocations, lower-extremity sprains and strains, and lower-extremity fractures than home-trampoline injuries. Pattern-documenting investigative-journalism corroboration: Boston 25 News “25 Investigates” recorded 224 EMS calls over seven years across five Massachusetts Sky Zone locations (predominantly feet and legs); 6ABC Philadelphia Action News recorded 300+ 911 dispatch calls to fourteen trampoline parks in approximately three and a half years; KPIX / Bay Area local reporting recorded at least seventy-three emergency 911 responses to a dozen Bay Area parks over a two-year period.

AAP recommendation

The American Academy of Pediatrics has consistently recommended against home or recreational trampoline use by children, with particular emphasis on children younger than six. The 2025 reaffirmation of the 2012 policy statement is the current operative AAP authority and is admissible in plaintiff trampoline-park litigation as evidence of the standard of care for pediatric trampoline use.

F.3 Commercial-Trucking Nuclear-Verdict Data

The American commercial-trucking nuclear-verdict era — verdicts in excess of $10 million — has accelerated sharply in the past five years. The data points below are drawn from the public verdict record described in Volume A.1 and from FMCSA aggregate data at Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts.

Aggregate trend data

Average reported trucking verdict: approximately $27,500,000 (2020–2023). Median nuclear verdict: approximately $36,000,000 (2022). Verdicts greater than $10 million increased 6.4% per year (2013–2022). In approximately eighty percent of major trucking verdicts, non-medical damages exceed medical damages by approximately ten times. Industry insurance costs have increased approximately twelve percent per year (2020–2024).

Anchor verdicts and settlements (largest reported)

2021 Werner Enterprises / Florida — $1,000,000,000 ($100M compensatory + $900M punitive) for the wrongful death of an eighteen-year-old in a chain-reaction crash. The largest reported United States trucking verdict.

2021 Ramsey v. Landstar Ranger / Florida — $730,000,000 ($480M compensatory + $250M punitive) for the death of a seventy-three-year-old plaintiff in an oversize-load haul.

2024 Wabash National / Missouri — $462,000,000 for two underride-decapitation fatalities; trailer-design defect.

2020 Washington v. Top Auto Express / Florida — $411,000,000 for severe motorcyclist injury in a 45-vehicle pileup.

2024 Street v. Daimler / Alabama — $160,000,000 ($75M compensatory + $75M punitive) for rollover quadriplegia; Alabama contributory-negligence rule overcome.

2022 Werner Enterprises / Texas — $150,000,000 settlement to family of two children killed in I-30 crash. Reported as the largest 18-wheeler settlement in United States history.

2023 Defunct Florida carrier — $141,500,000.

2014 Tracy Morgan v. Walmart Transportation — confidential settlement reportedly approximately $90,000,000; driver awake approximately twenty-eight hours.

Multiple Texas verdicts in the $35M to $90M range (Houston refinery-corridor truck-driver burn case; Tarrant County 2025 $35M; multiple Texas-family truck cases at $35.5M and $37.5M).

Georgia Cherokee County 2024 wrongful death — $47,000,000. Illinois fatal crash — $25,400,000. Missouri Wentzville wrongful death — $20,000,000 (upheld on appeal).

F.4 Refinery and Petrochemical Fatality Data (OSHA, CSB, BLS)

The American Texas-Gulf-Coast refinery and petrochemical industry employs approximately 100,000 workers. The fatality and severe-injury record is concentrated in process-safety-management failures, lockout-tagout failures, hot-work flash fires, hydrogen-sulfide exposure, and confined-space asphyxiation.

BP Texas City as the modern benchmark incident

March 23, 2005 — fifteen workers killed; more than 170 injured. Approximately $2 billion in civil-litigation payments by BP. OSHA settlement penalties of $87.4 million (2009) plus $21.3 million earlier (combined $50.6 million net settled). Federal environmental-crime fine of $50 million. Texas state environmental fine of $50 million. The CSB final report remains one of the most-cited federal industrial-accident investigations in American regulatory history.

OSHA Severe Injury Reports

The OSHA Severe Injury Reports public dashboard records all work-related amputations, hospitalizations, and losses of an eye reported to OSHA within twenty-four hours under the federal reporting program. OSHA SIR dashboard. Plaintiff counsel should pull the SIR record for any defendant facility within five years before any specific incident. Pattern-of-incident evidence developed through SIR records routinely supports negligent-supervision and punitive-damages claims.

BLS occupational-fatality data — petroleum refining and oilfield

Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) data consistently records the petroleum-and-coal-products manufacturing sector and the oil-and-gas-extraction sector among the highest-fatality-rate industries in the United States. The oil-and-gas-extraction fatality rate exceeds the all-industry rate by approximately five to seven times in most reporting years.

F.5 Maritime Fatality and Injury Data (USCG, BLS)

The United States maritime-employment record consistently shows the commercial-fishing sector and certain oil-and-gas-extraction maritime occupations among the most dangerous occupations in the United States.

BLS maritime occupational-fatality rate

Commercial fishing has been among the top three highest-fatality-rate occupations in the United States in nearly every BLS CFOI annual reporting year. The fatal-injury rate is concentrated in fall-overboard, vessel-disasters, struck-by, and machinery incidents.

USCG marine-casualty record

The USCG investigates and reports all serious marine casualties on United States waters. Public access through the USCG Marine Casualty Reports portal. Plaintiff counsel should subpoena the USCG investigation file in every Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and general-maritime case where the underlying incident triggered USCG reporting. The investigation file frequently contains witness statements, photographs, and findings unavailable through any other discovery channel.

F.6 National Hazing-Death Record (Hank Nuwer Dataset, 1838 → Present)

The canonical national hazing-deaths database is maintained by author and researcher Hank Nuwer at hanknuwer.com. The dataset is split into two pages: the 1838–1999 archive and the 2000-to-present record.

First documented United States hazing fatality

1873 — Mortimer Leggett, a Cornell University freshman, died after a Kappa Alpha Society blindfolded-pledge-walk incident at a quarry. The first hazing death documented in American academic-history records.

First documented Texas hazing fatality

1928 — Nolte McElroy, a University of Texas at Austin pledge, died of electrocution during a Delta Kappa Epsilon hazing ritual. The foundational Texas hazing-fatality matter.

Modern documented fatalities (selected representative data points)

1997 — Brian Sanders / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / Texas A&M University. 2000 — Adrian Heideman / Pi Kappa Phi / California State University, Chico. 2008 — Carson Starkey / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. 2011 — Robert D. Champion Jr. / Florida A&M University Marching 100 (the leading non-Greek-letter American hazing case). 2013 — Chun Hsien “Michael” Deng / Pi Delta Psi / Baruch College (organization criminally convicted). 2017 — Timothy J. Piazza / Beta Theta Pi / Penn State; settlements reportedly exceeding $110 million; produced the Tim Piazza Antihazing Law (Pa. 2018). 2017 — Maxwell Raymond Gruver / Phi Delta Theta / Louisiana State University; produced the Max Gruver Act (La. 2018). 2017 — Andrew Coffey / Pi Kappa Phi / Florida State University. 2019 — Noah Domingo / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / UC Irvine. 2021 — Stone Foltz / Pi Kappa Alpha / Bowling Green State University; produced Collin’s Law (Ohio 2021).

Active 2025 matter

2025 — Leonel Bermudez / Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu Chapter / University of Houston (active litigation; allegations include rhabdomyolysis with acute kidney failure following extended high-intensity exertion; full case entry at A.1 Bermudez).

Aggregate scope

Per the firm’s source documentation, the database records approximately 243 documented hazing cases from 1838 through 2024 — a working figure subject to revision as the dataset is updated. Texas alone accounts for approximately twenty-one documented hazing deaths and severe injuries since 1928. California accounts for approximately twenty-one. New York for approximately sixteen. Pennsylvania for approximately twelve. Verify each state’s figure against the current Nuwer dataset before specific citation in any individual matter.

F.7 The Rule Vacuum Index (Trampoline Parks)

The Rule Vacuum Index is the firm’s structured scorecard of nine categories of patron behavior that commercial trampoline parks should rule on but generally do not. Each category is presented with the hazard mechanism, what ASTM F2970-25 says, what IATP says, what state law says, the discovery-development playbook, and the parent-education content angle. The Index is the analytical framework behind every plaintiff-side staff-training and pre-injury-knowledge case-development plan in this firm’s practice.

The nine categories

1. Food, drink, gum, and candy on the jump floor

Hazard: aspiration during deep breathing; vomiting and aspiration after head-first foam-pit landing; choking on hot dogs, hard candy, gum, and grapes. ASTM/IATP rule: none. State law: no statute mandates food rules. Discovery target: park’s written food/drink policy; birthday-party run-of-show showing eat-then-jump order; signage at incident date; staff Heimlich/airway training; AED/first-aid log; FOIA 911 dispatches. Content angle: “Pizza-then-trampoline at a birthday party — and the park has no written rule against any of it.”

2. Medical pre-screening

Hazard: cardiac arrest, seizure mid-jump, miscarriage, placental abruption, fetal trauma, post-surgical reinjury. ASTM/IATP rule: none. State law: none. Documented data point: Ty Thomasson allegedly entered SkyPark Phoenix without any heart-condition screening. Discovery target: park intake/check-in process; waiver versions; chain’s published safety statements as exhibits; staff impairment-recognition protocols. Content angle: “Rebounderz published its own warning that pregnant women shouldn’t jump. Then it lets them sign the waiver and walk on.”

3. Clothing — drawstrings, hoods, jewelry

Hazard: drawstring entrapment in netting producing strangulation; hood at foam-pit edge producing positional asphyxiation; pendant chain wrapping a spring producing laceration or airway compression; finger degloving at mat-frame gaps. ASTM/IATP: no rule (jewelry-removal signage exists but enforcement varies). State law: none. UK comparison: BSI PAS 5000:2017 mandates removal. CPSC: 2026 SEGMART recall recognizes the strangulation hazard at the product level. Discovery target: park entry-inspection protocol; signage archive; staff training on entry inspection; locker / replacement-clothing availability. Content angle: “CPSC just recalled toddler trampolines for strangulation. The commercial park lets your kid walk in wearing the same drawstring hoodie.”

4. Hair entrapment

Hazard: long unbraided hair wraps springs, netting gaps, ventilation/fan intake; rotational hair-entrapment force at full rebound exceeds tear-strength of scalp tissue; scalp avulsion. ASTM/IATP/state: no rule. Discovery target: park entry inspection; staff training on hair-entrapment recognition; pediatric ER and amusement-industry safety experts; cross-reference net-padding-gap class-of-incident pattern. Content angle: “A single unlucky catch on a spring at full rebound can produce scalp avulsion. This is a five-minute rule the industry refuses to write.”

5. Intoxication — patrons and staff

Hazard: intoxicated patron — impaired balance, delayed reaction, more flips. Intoxicated staff — cannot monitor 50+ jumpers, execute the emergency action plan, evaluate 911 need, or administer first aid. Dram-shop overlay where alcohol is served (Launch / Krave bar; Jumping World / JW Bar & Grill; in-house bar service generally). ASTM/IATP rule: none. No public-record sobriety / random-testing policy for safety employees at any major chain. Discovery target: park’s sobriety policy (or none); pre-shift testing records; post-incident testing; alcohol-service logs; entry intoxication-screen protocols. Content angle: “The park’s rule on whether the monitor watching your child can show up drunk: nothing.”

6. Environmental conditions — Glow Nights, lighting, heat, hydration, noise

Hazard: UV blacklight plus low ambient light makes depth and distance perception impossible; high indoor temps plus body heat produce rhabdomyolysis and heat exhaustion; noise makes verbal safety warnings inaudible. ASTM/IATP/state: no minimum lux level, no max patron density during reduced-light, no higher monitor ratio for Glow Nights, no decibel cap, no heat / hydration mandate. Discovery target: park lux-meter for night of incident vs. normal operations; Glow Night vs. daytime staffing comparison; HVAC settings; hand-signal protocols (most parks rely on verbal only). Content angle: “Glow Night at Sky Zone: same staffing, one-eighth the light. Twice as dangerous.”

7. Rest intervals and fatigue monitoring

Hazard: rhabdomyolysis from extended jumping; compartment syndrome; fatigue-impact injuries (jumper too tired to land safely); “jump all day” pricing incentivizes multi-hour high-intensity jumping. ASTM/IATP rest-interval rule: none. No session-length cap; no fatigue cutoff. State law: none. Discovery target: park’s session-cap policy (or none); wristband color-coding; hydration-break enforcement; staff training on fatigue-sign recognition; medical records linking rhabdo and compartment to jumping duration. Content angle: “Jump-all-day pass. Three hours in, his legs are shaking. No staff intervention. The business model is designed to keep him jumping until something breaks.”

8. Concurrent attractions and traffic patterns

Hazard: open jump, dodgeball, foam pit, ninja course, basketball dunk, and fitness classes run simultaneously; transition points between attractions are documented hotspots (Get Air PA $412K; Flight Deck Fort Worth). ASTM/IATP/state: no inter-attraction traffic rule; no transition-monitor requirement; no one-way-flow design mandate. Discovery target: park’s traffic-flow policy; transition-monitor staffing logs; scheduling blocks separating dodgeball and open-jump; floor-plan diagrams; transition-point incident clustering. Content angle: “Where one attraction ends and another begins is where the injuries happen. The park has no written rule about how patrons cross those boundaries.”

9. Pre-existing-injury re-entry

Hazard: reinjury, cumulative damage, non-union fracture, permanent deformity. ASTM/IATP rule: none. No current-injury entry screen; no return-to-play medical clearance; the waiver disclaims “known conditions” but relies on patron self-report only. State law: none. Discovery target: demand patron-tracking data (wristband scans, season-pass records, party rosters); cross-reference against incident reports; injured-on-Visit-1-returned-on-Visit-2-injured-again pattern produces foreseeability + failure-to-act + gross-negligence predicate. Content angle: “The park’s records show your child was injured here last month. They let her back in today without asking a single question.”

F.8 Insurance-Coverage and Exclusion Patterns

Trampoline-park CGL with participant-injury exclusion

Sky Zone, Urban Air, Altitude, and the major trampoline-park chains routinely operate under commercial general liability policies that contain participant-injury exclusions. The structure is canonical: a primary policy of approximately $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, with the participant-injury exclusion built in. The reported coverage litigation includes Great American Assurance v. Sky Zone (declaratory-judgment action on the carrier’s duty to defend) and Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Altitude Trampoline (participant-injury exclusion applied). Plaintiff counsel must develop the coverage record in pre-suit Blueprint-of-Coverage discovery to determine the available recovery field.

Commercial-trucking layered coverage

Federal minimum financial responsibility under 49 CFR Part 387: $750,000 general; $1,000,000 oil and equipment; $5,000,000 hazardous materials; $5,000,000 sixteen-or-more-passenger carriers; $1,500,000 fewer-than-sixteen-passenger carriers. Above the federal minimum, carriers commonly carry primary auto-liability coverage of $1 million to $5 million plus excess and umbrella coverage layering up to $25 million, $50 million, $100 million, or higher. Walmart Transportation, UPS, and FedEx are largely self-insured. Amazon DSP structure: $1 million DSP-level primary plus $5 million Amazon contingent excess plus corporate excess. MCS-90 endorsement provides federal-public-protection coverage even when the underlying policy would otherwise be void.

Refinery and petrochemical insurance

Layered $25 million to $1 billion-plus structures across primary, excess, and umbrella towers. Self-insured retentions (SIR) are common at the bottom of the tower for major operators (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton). Plaintiff counsel must develop the full tower record in pre-suit and early discovery.

Maritime insurance

Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club coverage is the standard maritime employer-liability insurance structure. Hull insurance covers vessel value. Cargo insurance covers cargo. Pollution coverage is often a separate layer. United States Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act coverage is the alternative-coverage scheme to the Jones Act for non-seamen.

F.9 Texas Verdict and Settlement Geography

Texas catastrophic-injury verdict and settlement geography is concentrated in five metros: Houston (Harris County and surrounding Fort Bend, Montgomery, Galveston, and Brazoria), Dallas–Fort Worth (Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton), Austin (Travis, Williamson, and Hays), San Antonio (Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe), and the Beaumont / Golden Triangle (Jefferson, Orange, and Hardin).

Houston / Harris County

The largest reported United States commercial-trampoline-park jury verdict — Menchaca v. Cosmic Jump at $11,485,000 — was rendered in Harris County. The active Bermudez v. UH hazing matter is pending in Harris County District Court. The Lakhani Sugar Land Urban Air harness-attachment matter is pending in Harris County. Houston has the densest commercial-trampoline-park footprint in Texas and the densest refinery-and-petrochemical defendant footprint in the United States.

Dallas–Fort Worth / Tarrant County

Tarrant County is a chain-headquarters jurisdiction. Urban Air corporate headquarters is in Bedford (Tarrant County); Altitude corporate headquarters is in Fort Worth. Every documented operational failure at any United States Urban Air or Altitude park is, in some discovery sense, a Tarrant County document.

Austin / Travis County

Travis County juries have demonstrated willingness to hold corporate defendants accountable in catastrophic-injury cases. The Texas Tort Claims Act framework for state and municipal venues is administered through the Travis County District Clerk and District Courts.

San Antonio / Bexar County

The Bexar County jury reputation is plaintiff-favorable relative to Tarrant or Collin. The bilingual demographic in Bexar makes Delfingen-grade waiver-formation challenges relevant in many San Antonio matters. The Trevino appellate ruling originated in the San Antonio appellate district.

Beaumont / Jefferson County / Golden Triangle

Jefferson County juries have a long-documented reputation for plaintiff-favorable verdicts in catastrophic-injury cases — the so-called “Beaumont factor” in Texas trial-lawyer parlance. The Golden Triangle’s industrial economy and labor-organized history produce a jury pool more receptive than most Texas counties to corporate-accountability arguments. The Geter appellate ruling originated from a Beaumont incident at the Urban Air at 6250 Eastex Freeway.

Texas refinery-corridor verdict footprint

The Texas Gulf Coast refinery corridor produces a separate verdict-and-settlement geography concentrated in Galveston, Brazoria, and Jefferson counties. The reported BP Texas City civil-litigation outcome (approximately $2 billion in aggregate civil payments) was concentrated in Galveston and Harris counties.

Volume G — Timelines

Volume G presents seven chronologies. Each timeline is anchored to dated authority — court records, agency findings, contemporaneous press, and statutory effective dates. Where a date is approximate or contested, the entry says so.

G.1 CPSC Trampoline-Product Recall Chronology (1999 → 2026)

1999 — JumpSport trampoline safety-net enclosure recall (strap failure; 2 reports, no injuries at recall).

2003 — Hedstrom Corporation backyard / consumer trampoline recall (Recall 03-168). Welds on frame rails broke. Approximately 700 reports of weld breakage.

January 24, 2005 — Jumpking Inc. (Mesquite, Texas) trampoline plus FunRing enclosure recall (Recall 05-092). Approximately 1,000,000 trampolines plus 296,000 FunRing enclosures — among the largest trampoline recalls in United States history.

May 26, 2009 — Skywalker Holdings 13-foot square trampoline plus enclosure combo recall (Recall 09-230). Approximately 60,000 units.

2009 — Aviva Sports trampoline recall.

May 2012 — Sportspower / BouncePro 14-foot trampoline (TR-14-63-A) initial recall — brown Tetlon netting. Approximately 92,000 units (Walmart-exclusive Feb 2009 – Mar 2011).

January 2013 — Sportspower / BouncePro recall expansion — black Tetlon netting. Approximately 120,000 total BouncePro units. Separate Sports Authority secondary recall in 2013.

2017 — Jumpking Bazoongi Kids children’s trampoline recall.

August 2019 — Super Jumper 14-foot and 16-foot trampoline recall. Approximately 23,000 units.

2019 — JumpSport folding mini-trampoline recall (instructions / warning-label recall).

2026 — SEGMART mini round toddler trampoline recall — strangulation hazard; risk of serious injury or death. The first modern CPSC trampoline recall expressly framed as a strangulation-hazard recall.

G.2 Major Commercial-Trampoline-Park Catastrophic-Injury Chronology

February 2, 2012 — Ty Thomasson cervical-fracture fatality at SkyPark Phoenix (Arizona). Produced “Ty’s Law” (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 5-1101 et seq.).

2013 (injury) — Max Menchaca falls through torn slide at Cosmic Jump (Houston, Texas) on the first day of summer vacation; sustains skull fracture, seizures, traumatic brain injury. Verdict approximately 2018-2019 — $11,485,000 (largest reported United States commercial-trampoline-park verdict).

August 2015 — Anthony Seitz cervical-spinal-cord injury at AirMaxx (St. Cloud, Minnesota). $3,000,000 mediation settlement.

April 7, 2017 — Four-year-old Salter-Harris growth-plate-fracture injury at Flight Deck Trampoline Park (Fort Worth, Texas).

2017 — Ric Swezey C2 fatality at Virginia trampoline park.

2019 — Matthew Lu twelve-year-old climbing-wall fatality at Altitude Gastonia (North Carolina). Pre-litigation public “human error” admission and removal of the climbing wall.

July 2021 — Damion Collins Wipe-Out backflip cervical-spinal-cord injury at Urban Air Adventure Park (Overland Park, Kansas).

August 25, 2020 — Emil Vogt bilateral catastrophic leg fractures from spring entrapment at Rebounderz of Edison (New Jersey). $1,250,000 settlement.

April 13–17, 2023 — Anthony Duran ten-year-old altercation collapse and death at Rockin’ Jump Merced (California).

September 14, 2023 — Collins arbitration award: $15,600,000 net (gross $19.5M reduced by 20% comparative fault). Largest reported arbitration award in commercial-trampoline-park history.

September 4, 2025 — Kansas trampoline-park policy-limits settlement of $1,000,000 (pilon fracture from unstable trampoline bed).

December 2025 — Six-year-old Emma Riddle go-kart fatality at Urban Air Port St. Lucie (Florida).

G.3 Waiver-Law Evolution (Hojnowski 2006 → Cerna and Santiago 2025)

1992 — Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort (Wash. Sup. Ct.). Foundational Washington plaintiff-friendly minor-waiver authority.

1999 — Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp. (S.D.N.Y.). Foundational consumer-trampoline product-liability decision.

2001 — Hawkins v. Peart (Utah Sup. Ct.). Both parental waiver and indemnity void in Utah.

2002 — Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co. (Colo. Sup. Ct.). Plaintiff-friendly minor-waiver holding (subsequently superseded by statute).

2003 — Colorado legislative response: C.R.S. § 13-22-107 superseding Cooper.

2005 — Hanks v. Powder Ridge (Conn. Sup. Ct.). Connecticut public-policy bar on recreational-fee adhesion waivers.

2006 — Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park (N.J. Sup. Ct.). Seminal forum-versus-substance distinction in New Jersey.

2008 — Kirton v. Fields (Fla. Sup. Ct.).

2010 — Galloway v. State (Iowa Sup. Ct.); Woodman v. Kera (Mich. Sup. Ct.). Florida 2010 statutory amendment to FS § 744.301.

2011 — Michigan legislative response: M.C.L. § 700.5109 (nonprofit youth-recreation carve-out).

2013 — BJ’s Wholesale Club v. Rosen (Md. Ct. App.). Maryland park-friendly free-supervised-play-area holding. Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. v. Valenzuela (Tex. App.—El Paso). Spanish-language formation defect.

2016 — Alicea v. Activelaf (La. Sup. Ct.). Louisiana camouflaged-arbitration unconscionability holding.

2017 — Blackwell v. Sky High Sports (Tenn. Ct. App.). Tennessee minor-waiver and forum-selection-clause attack.

2021 — New Jersey Sky Zone arbitration cluster: Gayles, Johnson, Lawrence, Richardson.

2022 — Perez v. Sky Zone (N.J. App. Div.). Non-signatory carve-out holding.

September 12, 2024 — Beaumont Adventure Park v. Geter (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]). Texas direct-benefits estoppel.

2024 — Bite Entertainment v. Trevino (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.]).

May 23, 2025 — Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC (Tex. Sup. Ct.). Texas delegation-clause routing.

2025 — Santiago / Shultz (Pa. Sup. Ct.). Pennsylvania parent-cannot-bind-minor holding. Karlin v. UATP Springfield (Mo. Sup. Ct.). Missouri delegation-clause holding. Coppi v. Urban Air (N.J. App. Div.). Litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration.

G.4 BP Texas City and Texas Gulf-Coast Refinery Chronology

March 23, 2005 — Hydrocarbon-vapor-cloud ignition during isomerization-unit restart at the BP Texas City refinery. Fifteen workers killed; 170-plus injured.

2005–2007 — Initial CSB investigation; OSHA enforcement; immediate civil-litigation response.

2007 — CSB final report issued.

2009 — OSHA settlement penalties of $87.4 million plus $21.3 million earlier (combined $50.6 million net settled).

2005–2010 and beyond — Approximately $2 billion in BP civil-litigation payments. Federal environmental-crime fine of $50 million. Texas state environmental fine of $50 million.

2013 — BP sells the Texas City refinery to Marathon Petroleum (renamed the Galveston Bay Refinery).

2016 — API RP 752 (3rd edition) revisions reflect post-Texas-City regulatory baseline.

January 2024 — API RP 752 (4th edition) and API RP 753 (2nd edition) released.

2025 — Continued post-Texas-City regulatory and litigation framework remains the operative baseline.

G.5 Bermudez v. University of Houston Chronology

Fall 2025 — Leonel Bermudez transfers to the University of Houston and pledges the Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu Chapter.

October 13, 2025 — Allegation: a separate pledge is hog-tied face-down on a table for over an hour.

Late October / Early November 2025 — Allegations of sustained pledge mistreatment including the fanny-pack rule; cold-weather exposure in underwear; hose-spraying allegedly similar to waterboarding; forced consumption of milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns; and dawn / late-night workouts at Yellowstone Boulevard Park.

November 3, 2025 — Allegation: workout regime of more than 100 push-ups and 500 squats while reciting the chapter creed under threat of expulsion. Bermudez allegedly unable to stand at the conclusion. Hospitalization follows; rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury diagnosed; brown urine documented; critically high creatine-kinase laboratory findings.

November 6, 2025 — Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters suspends the Beta Nu chapter.

November 14, 2025 — Beta Nu chapter members vote to surrender the charter; the chapter is permanently shut down.

November 21, 2025 — Lawsuit filed in Harris County District Court by Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña of The Manginello Law Firm. The complaint seeks more than ten million dollars and names the University of Houston, the UH System Board of Regents, Pi Kappa Phi national, the Beta Nu housing corporation, and thirteen individual members.

November 21, 2025 onwards — Active litigation. Press coverage by Click2Houston, ABC13, and Hoodline. The University of Houston issues a public statement calling the alleged conduct “deeply disturbing.”

G.6 National Hazing-Death Chronology by Decade

1873 — Mortimer Leggett / Kappa Alpha Society / Cornell University. The first documented United States hazing fatality.

1928 — Nolte McElroy / Delta Kappa Epsilon / University of Texas at Austin (electrocution). The first documented Texas hazing fatality.

1990s — Documented fatalities include Brian Sanders / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / Texas A&M University (1997).

2000s — Adrian Heideman / Pi Kappa Phi / California State University, Chico (2000); Matt Carrington / Chi Tau / California State University, Chico (2005); Lambda Phi Epsilon / UC Irvine (2005); Carson Starkey / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (2008); Chad Meredith / Kappa Sigma / University of Miami.

2010s — Robert D. Champion Jr. / FAMU Marching 100 (2011); Chun Hsien “Michael” Deng / Pi Delta Psi / Baruch College (2013); Maxwell Gruver / Phi Delta Theta / LSU (2017); Timothy Piazza / Beta Theta Pi / Penn State (2017); Andrew Coffey / Pi Kappa Phi / FSU (2017); Noah Domingo / Sigma Alpha Epsilon / UC Irvine (2019).

2020s — Stone Foltz / Pi Kappa Alpha / Bowling Green State University (Ohio, 2021); Danny Santulli severe injury / Phi Gamma Delta / University of Missouri.

2025 (active) — Leonel Bermudez / Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu / University of Houston (active litigation; rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney failure diagnosis).

G.7 FMCSA Major-Rule Chronology

2003 — Hours of Service rule revisions establishing the modern eleven-hour driving limit and fourteen-hour on-duty window framework.

2010 — FMCSA issues HOS rule revisions limiting use of the sleeper-berth provision. CSA program rolled out (Compliance, Safety, Accountability).

2013 — HOS revisions including the thirty-minute break requirement and 34-hour restart provisions.

December 18, 2017 — ELD mandate effective date. Most carriers required to use Electronic Logging Devices in lieu of paper logs.

2018-2020 — HOS flexibility revisions; ELD enforcement matures.

2020 — FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse becomes fully operational.

2022 — Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) requirements take effect for new CDL applicants.

Volume H — Discovery and Case-Development Playbook

Volume H presents the firm’s industry-specific discovery and case-development playbook. Each section identifies the documents to demand, the corporate-deposition topics, the third-party subpoena targets, and the spoliation triggers and templates. The playbook is the working framework The Manginello Law Firm uses to develop the evidentiary foundation for every catastrophic-injury matter.

H.1 Industry-Specific Rule 34 Document-Production Demands

Trampoline-park Rule 34 demand (first-wave, within thirty days of filing)

Park-side: prior incident reports for the preceding five years (the Sky Zone “224 EMS calls” investigative-journalism record demonstrates these exist). Inspection logs covering the equipment involved in the incident (the Cosmic Jump torn-slide log was on the inspection log for weeks). Maintenance and repair records for the equipment involved. Surveillance video for the day of the incident, the seven days preceding, and the seven days following. Internal training materials including the worker manual (the Sky Zone “BE AWARE OF THE PADS” manual). All versions of the customer-facing waiver in use during the relevant period. Staff-training records for every monitor on duty during the incident. Staff-scheduling records, payroll records, and time-clock records demonstrating monitor presence and ratio. Daily monitor-to-jumper ratio logs (ASTM F2970 reference). Wristband tracking and POS records identifying every patron present during the incident. Insurance policies — primary, excess, and umbrella — with declarations pages, exclusions, and endorsements. CGL participant-injury exclusion documentation. Incident notification to the carrier. Reservation-of-rights letters. Franchisor-master-policy structure documentation.

Franchisor-side (when named as separate non-signatory defendant per Perez and Geter): franchise agreement; brand standards manual; safety standards manual; training-curriculum materials; audit reports for the franchisee location for the preceding five years; communications between franchisor and franchisee regarding safety; equipment-specification standards.

Commercial-trucking Rule 34 demand

Driver Qualification File (49 CFR § 391.51) covering employment application, MVR, medical certification, road test, drug-and-alcohol testing history, training records, and prior-employer verification. ELD records (49 CFR § 395.8) — minimum federal retention is six months, so demand within thirty days of crash is essential. Pre-trip and post-trip DVIR (49 CFR §§ 396.11, 396.13). Annual inspection records (49 CFR § 396.17). Maintenance and repair records. Tire records and replacement history. Brake-inspection and adjustment records. ECM / EDR data (overwrites in 30 days). Forward-facing dashcam video. Inward-facing dashcam video. Lytx / DriveCam video (Walmart). Mentor app data and Netradyne 4-camera video (Amazon). Smith System training-completion records (Walmart). Dispatch communications and messaging. Cell-phone records and text messages. GPS and telematics data. Bills of lading and cargo documentation. Insurance policies with all layers. MCS-90 endorsement. Safety policies and procedures. CSA / BASIC scores history. Spoliation / litigation-hold letter sent within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of retention.

Refinery and petrochemical Rule 34 demand

Process-Safety Management documentation (29 CFR § 1910.119). Mechanical-integrity inspection and testing records. Hot-work permits for the day of incident. Lockout-tagout records (29 CFR § 1910.147). Confined-space-entry permits. Operator training records. Process-Hazard-Analysis (PHA) records. Management-of-Change (MOC) records. Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) records. Emergency Response Plan. OSHA 300 log for the preceding five years. CSB submissions (where applicable). API RP 752 and 753 facility-siting documentation. Internal safety bulletins. Contractor safety records via ISNetworld / Veriforce. Insurance policies — full tower.

Maritime / Jones Act Rule 34 demand

USCG Form CG-2692 marine-casualty report. USCG investigation file. Vessel logs covering the incident date and the seven days preceding. Crew-list documents. Maintenance and repair records for the equipment involved. Vessel inspection certificates. Drug-and-alcohol-testing records for crew under 49 CFR Part 40. P&I policy. Hull policy. LHWCA insurance documentation (where applicable). Vessel-classification-society survey records.

Hazing Rule 34 demand

Chapter records — pledge education curriculum; pledge education calendar; chapter meeting minutes; ritual books; communications among officers (text messages, Snapchat, Discord, GroupMe — the modern fraternity-communication platforms). National-organization records — chapter audits; risk-management training records; hazing-incident-report archives; chapter charters and renewal records. University records — Greek life office records; Title IX office records; campus-police incident reports; hospital-transport records; Clery Annual Security Report. Photographs, video, and social media — the modern hazing-evidence record is overwhelmingly digital and overwhelmingly produced by the chapter members themselves on private platforms. Insurance — fraternity-organization liability policy; university general-liability policy.

H.2 Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate-Deposition Topic Sets

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) corporate deposition is the single most-leveraged discovery tool in catastrophic-injury practice. The plaintiff serves a notice listing topics; the corporate defendant designates a witness or witnesses authorized to speak for the corporation on each listed topic.

Trampoline-park 30(b)(6) topics

Corporate structure (parent, franchisor, franchisee, real-estate holdings, equipment leasing, payroll). Safety policies and procedures. ASTM F2970-25 compliance. IATP membership and certification status. Monitor-to-jumper ratio policies. Daily, weekly, monthly, and annual inspection regimes. Equipment maintenance and replacement policies. Incident-reporting policies. Five-year incident history at the location and chain-wide. Staff-training curriculum and completion tracking. Customer-waiver versions and presentation. Indemnification-clause administration. Class-action-waiver administration. Insurance-coverage structure including participant-injury-exclusion administration.

Commercial-trucking 30(b)(6) topics

Corporate structure including subsidiaries and DSP / ISP relationships. FMCSA registration and compliance. CSA / BASIC score management. Hours-of-Service compliance and monitoring. ELD administration. Driver hiring and qualification process. Driver training curriculum (Smith System; UPS 340 Methods / 5 Seeing Habits; Walmart Lytx / DriveCam program). Drug-and-alcohol-testing program (49 CFR Part 382 / Part 40). Maintenance and inspection program. Crash-reporting and post-crash investigation. Insurance-coverage layers. Dispatch and scheduling pressure. Bonus and pay structures that incentivize fatigue.

Refinery / petrochemical 30(b)(6) topics

Process-Safety Management program (29 CFR § 1910.119). Mechanical-integrity program. Operator training program. Process-Hazard-Analysis program. Management-of-Change program. Hot-work permitting. Lockout-tagout. Confined-space-entry program. Emergency Response Plan. API RP 752 / 753 facility-siting analysis. Contractor management (ISNetworld / Veriforce). Five-year OSHA 300 log and severe-injury history. CSB-reportable incidents.

Hazing-defendant 30(b)(6) topics

National-organization corporate structure. Chapter-charter renewal and audit process. Risk-management training and certification program. Anti-hazing policy and enforcement. Prior chapter-incident history at the institution and across the national organization. Communications between national and chapter regarding pledging and risk. Insurance-coverage layers. Title IX cooperation framework (where applicable).

H.3 Third-Party Subpoena Targets and Timing

Third-party subpoena targets are matter-specific but the core categories are consistent across catastrophic-injury practice: emergency medical services records (911 audio; EMS run sheets); law enforcement records (police reports, dashcam, body-cam); first-responder hospital records; CPSC SaferProducts.gov complaint history; FMCSA SAFER carrier history; OSHA Severe Injury Reports; CSB investigation files; USCG marine-casualty files; insurance carrier records (subrogation history, prior-claim history); employer / supervisor records; surveillance video from neighboring businesses (typically retained 7-30 days only — subpoena early); cellular-carrier records (call detail records, text-message metadata, location data); social-media records (Meta, Snap, X, Discord, GroupMe — preservation letter within 24 hours); banking records (where damages or insurance fraud is at issue).

H.4 Spoliation-Notice Templates and Triggers

The duty to preserve evidence attaches when litigation is reasonably foreseeable. The plaintiff’s preservation-of-evidence letter — sent to the defendant within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of retention — triggers the duty for the recipient and creates the documentary foundation for adverse-inference relief if evidence is subsequently lost or destroyed. The Manginello Law Firm sends a preservation-of-evidence letter on every retention.

Spoliation triggers — when to send

Trampoline park: within twenty-four to forty-eight hours; before surveillance video is overwritten (typical retention is 7 to 14 days). Commercial trucking: within twenty-four to forty-eight hours; ECM / EDR data overwrites in 30 days; ELD federal-minimum retention is 6 months. Refinery / petrochemical: within twenty-four to forty-eight hours; OSHA 300 log retention is 5 years; CSB-reportable-incident triggers preservation. Hazing: within twenty-four hours; social-media and chat-application records can be deleted by individual chapter members within hours.

Spoliation litigation framework (Texas)

Texas treats spoliation as a discovery-sanction matter under Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014), and as a substantive-evidence matter where the destruction was intentional. Sanctions range from adverse-inference instruction to dismissal. The Knight Georgia $3.5M verdict turned on a four-camera-glitch surveillance-spoliation fact pattern and an adverse-inference instruction.

H.5 Expert-Witness Category Map

Every catastrophic-injury case requires Daubert-grade expert presentation. The Manginello Law Firm deploys experts across the following categories on every catastrophic-injury matter as warranted by the specific facts.

Liability and case-development experts

Biomechanical engineer — injury-causation modeling and energy-of-injury reconstruction. Accident-reconstruction engineer — vehicle dynamics, impact analysis, and event-sequence reconstruction. Human-factors expert — perception-reaction time, attention, and warnings adequacy. Industry-standards expert — ASTM F2970, IATP, FMCSA, OSHA, API standards interpretation. Electrical engineer — for industrial electrical-injury cases. Mechanical engineer — for product-defect cases. Industrial-hygiene expert — for refinery and petrochemical exposure cases. Process-safety-management expert — for refinery cases. Maritime expert — for Jones Act and unseaworthiness cases.

Medical experts

Treating physicians as fact-and-opinion witnesses (the most-credible source of medical testimony at trial). Neurologist — for traumatic brain injury and seizure-disorder cases. Neuropsychologist — for cognitive-impairment quantification (WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, Halstead-Reitan, Boston Naming Test, etc.). Neurosurgeon and orthopedic surgeon. Physiatrist (physical-medicine and rehabilitation specialist). Pain-management physician. Psychiatrist or psychologist — for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and mental-anguish damages. Life-care planner — the projected lifetime medical-care cost roadmap.

Damages experts

Economist — for present-value calculations of lost earnings, lost earning capacity, lost household services, and lost consortium. Vocational expert — for earning-capacity quantification. Forensic accountant — for business-loss and self-employment-income cases.

Volume I — Waiver and Contract Teardown

Volume I is the side-by-side waiver-clause-teardown gallery. Every commercial-recreational waiver in the United States contains a recurring set of clauses: an acknowledgment of inherent danger, a release of negligence, an arbitration provision, a class-action waiver, a damages cap or exclusion, an indemnification provision, a forum-selection or choice-of-law clause, and a one-year-or-shorter limitations period. Each clause has a documented attack vector. The Volume catalogues the headline trampoline-park waivers (Sky Zone, Urban Air, Altitude), extends the analysis to gym, ski, water-park, paintball, kart, rideshare, and stadium-ticket clauses, addresses university and Greek-organization releases, and closes with a discussion of the universal indemnification trap that converts the parent who signed the waiver into the operator’s defender against the parent’s own injured child.

I.1 Trampoline-Park Waivers — Sky Zone, Urban Air, Altitude

Altitude Trampoline Park

The Altitude customer waiver, posted at altitudetrampolinepark.com/terms, is a master class in commercial-recreational adhesion drafting. The most-litigated clauses follow.

The $100 collective-damages cap: “IN NO EVENT WILL WE AND ALL OF OUR AFFILIATES COLLECTIVELY BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF ONE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS.” Attack vector: substantive unconscionability — a $100 cap against a foreseeable cervical-spinal-cord-injury exposure of $5 million-plus shocks the conscience under substantive unconscionability doctrine and against the Tunkl public-interest framework. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747 (2007) holds gross-negligence claims cannot be contractually waived. Texas applies the same rule under Moriel. The minor-waiver-void line of authority in Volume E.1 independently bars enforcement against minor-plaintiff claims.

Binding AAA arbitration in Dallas, Texas: all disputes are routed through American Arbitration Association proceedings within fifty miles of Altitude’s Dallas headquarters, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Attack vector: forum unconscionability for non-Texas plaintiffs; minor-plaintiff bar under Santiago/Shultz; non-parent-signer bar under Gayles; litigation-conduct waiver under Coppi; gross-negligence carve-out.

Class-action waiver: “ALL PROCEEDINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.” The clause includes the so-called “poison pill” provision — if the class waiver is held unenforceable, the entire arbitration agreement is void as to that dispute. Attack vector: weaponize the poison pill — strike the class waiver under state consumer-protection law and ride the poison pill out of arbitration into court.

One-year limitations period: “Plaintiffs must file claims within one year or lose the right permanently.” Attack vector: substantive unconscionability for catastrophic pediatric matters where a year is insufficient to develop the medical record; minor-tolling-statute preemption under Tex. CPRC § 16.001 and most other state minor-tolling statutes.

Damages exclusions: jury trial waived; punitive damages prohibited; the $100 collective-cap. Attack vector: punitive damages are a public-policy remedy for gross misconduct that cannot be contractually extinguished — the Cosmic Jump verdict included $6 million in punitives, well within the Texas Chapter 41 cap.

Indemnification: “DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD US AND ALL OF OUR AFFILIATES AND AGENTS HARMLESS.” Attack vector: minor-indemnity void under Hawkins v. Peart. Indemnification clauses that shift the financial burden of the operator’s negligence to the parent of the injured child are void as a matter of public policy because they would let negligent parties circumvent the minor-waiver-void rule.

Franchisee carve-out: “Each local park is independently operated by franchisees, who are separately liable for their operations.” Attack vector: apparent agency under Miller v. McDonald’s Corp. and the Collins arbitration UATP-Management 40% apportionment — the franchisor cannot disclaim liability via a clause buried in the customer waiver where uniforms, branding, websites, and safety videos all point to a unified national entity.

Sky Zone

The Sky Zone customer waiver assembled from reported cases (Alicea, Gayles, Hojnowski, Johnson, Lawrence, Richardson, Perez, Santiago/Shultz, Blackwell) and from public filings.

Acknowledgment of inherent danger: “Participating in trampoline and other activities is inherently and obviously dangerous”; participation is “voluntarily at [the patron’s] own risk”; the patron could “suffer significant bodily injuries” or “die or become paralyzed, partially or fully.” Attack vector: use the contract against the contracting party — Sky Zone’s own contract literally predicts that patrons can die or become paralyzed. Foreseeability is written into the waiver. Cite the verbatim quote in every brief.

JAMS Rule 16.1 expedited arbitration: Claims “shall be brought within one year of accrual and be determined by arbitration before one arbitrator … administered by JAMS pursuant to its Rule 16.1 Expedited Arbitration Rules and Procedures.” Attack vector: JAMS-unavailability is not a defeat in New Jersey under Lawrence, Richardson, and Flanzman v. Jenny Craig; minor-child bar in Pennsylvania under Santiago/Shultz; non-parent-signer bar under Gayles; adhesionary / camouflaged language attack under Alicea; litigation-conduct waiver under Coppi.

Liquidated-damages clause (the Alicea trigger): if the patron files a lawsuit, the patron is liable for $5,000 in liquidated damages; Sky Zone retained the right to sue the patron with no equivalent penalty. Attack vector: hallmark of adhesion — facially one-sided. Already ruled unconscionable in Alicea (La. 2016). Cite Alicea directly when Sky Zone moves to compel arbitration.

Forum-selection plus choice-of-law: California forum and California choice of law applied to a Tennessee trampoline-park injury at a Sky Zone affiliate, where the defendant entity had no California nexus. Attack vector: the Tennessee Court of Appeals struck both clauses in Blackwell as unenforceable where the injury jurisdiction had a stronger interest than the contractually-designated jurisdiction.

Parent-signature language: a parent clicks the agreement on behalf of the parent and on behalf of named minor children with date-of-birth fields. Attack vector: the fifteen-plus minor-waiver-void states bar enforcement against the minor’s claim regardless of the parent’s signature; the non-parent-signer bar under Gayles; the non-signing-spouse bar under Santiago/Shultz.

Internal worker manual / customer-waiver discrepancy: Sky Zone’s internal employee manual contains the warning “BE AWARE OF THE PADS”; the customer waiver contains no such specific warning despite Sky Zone’s documented internal knowledge of the pad-related-injury pattern documented in the Boston 25 News investigation. Attack vector: failure-to-warn — the generalized “inherently dangerous” language does not cure the failure to warn of a specific, known, repeat-incident hazard. The discrepancy supports a gross-negligence / recklessness theory that defeats the waiver.

Urban Air

The Urban Air customer waiver derived from Collins, Cerna, Geter, Trevino, and Coppi.

Broad delegation clause: a “broadly worded arbitration clause covering disputes related to the SCOPE, VALIDITY, and ARBITRABILITY of the agreement.” Attack vector in Texas (post-Cerna): route around by attacking the existence of the agreement, not its scope. The plaintiff must specifically and separately challenge the delegation clause itself as unconscionable under Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson. In other jurisdictions, delegation clauses can be struck under Alicea-style camouflage and unconscionability arguments.

Assumption-of-risk language (the Collins defeat): the patron agrees that participation is at sole risk and assumes all risks inherent in the facility’s activities. Attack vector: even in Texas / arbitration / Urban Air, the waiver can be voided where the plaintiff develops evidence of “systemic failure to bring necessary information to the patron, and given the recognized risk of serious injury, the failure to timely implement [safety] changes” — the express finding of arbitrator Thomas Bender in the Collins arbitration.

Direct-benefits-estoppel route (the Geter framework): the parent signs for self and for named minor children; the minors access park attractions through the parent’s agreement. Attack vector: Texas binds the non-signing minor under Geter and Trevino, but claims against non-signatory defendants — franchisors, manufacturers, sister-entity LLCs, individual owners — are not compelled to arbitration. Stack the non-signatory defendants. Non-Texas jurisdictions apply direct-benefits estoppel non-uniformly.

Indemnification plus multi-entity parties: the patron defends and indemnifies the franchisee, the franchisor, UATP Management, UATP IP, UA Attractions, the individual owners, and the affiliates. Attack vector: minor-indemnity void under Hawkins v. Peart; multi-entity naming is not protective — Collins hit UATP Management with forty percent of the gross $19.5 million; Geter kept claims against non-signatory entities in court.

Litigation-conduct-waiver trigger (the Coppi rule): Urban Air engaged in substantive discovery before moving to compel arbitration. Attack vector: the New Jersey Appellate Division held the substantive litigation conduct waived the right to arbitration. Pursue discovery aggressively in any state recognizing the litigation-conduct-waiver doctrine.

I.2 Recreational-Activity Waivers — Gym, Ski, Water Park, Paintball, Kart

The recurring clause structure is consistent across recreational-activity waivers. Plaintiff counsel attacking any of them should map the clause-by-clause structure against the trampoline-park-waiver template above and apply the controlling authority in the operative jurisdiction.

Gym, fitness-club, and personal-training waivers

Typical clauses: assumption of inherent risk; release of negligence; arbitration; class-action waiver; indemnification. Attack vectors: Tunkl public-interest analysis; gross-negligence carve-out; minor-plaintiff cases. New York General Obligations Law § 5-326 voids gym waivers as a matter of statutory law.

Ski-resort waivers

Typical clauses: lift-ticket back-of-ticket release; rental-equipment release; lesson release; assumption of “inherent risks of skiing.” Attack vectors: the Colorado Supreme Court is re-examining the post-Cooper / C.R.S. § 13-22-107 framework in 2024; gross-negligence carve-outs; products-liability claims against equipment manufacturers (independent of any release signed with the resort).

Water-park waivers

Typical clauses: parallel structure to trampoline parks. Many water parks operate with similar arbitration and class-action-waiver provisions. Attack vectors: identical to the trampoline-park playbook.

Paintball, kart, ax-throwing, and escape-room waivers

Recreational-fee adhesion contracts. Attack vectors: Connecticut Hanks v. Powder Ridge reach extends to the full universe of public-fee recreational facilities. The Tunkl framework is the universal analytical baseline.

I.3 Rideshare and Stadium-Ticket Back-of-Ticket Clauses

Rideshare terms-of-service agreements (Uber and Lyft) routinely contain arbitration provisions, class-action waivers, and indemnification provisions. Attack vectors: minor-passenger cases (where the ride was booked by an adult but a minor was the passenger); non-rider claims (a non-rider injured by a rideshare vehicle is not bound by the terms of service); gross-negligence claims; vicarious-liability claims against the rideshare entity itself for the actions of the driver-contractor.

Stadium-ticket back-of-ticket release language commonly disclaims liability for foul balls, hockey pucks, and player-on-spectator contact. Attack vectors: the limited-duty doctrine for baseball spectators applies in some jurisdictions but is not absolute; gross-negligence and reckless-conduct claims survive most stadium-ticket releases.

I.4 University and Greek-Organization Release Language

University release language for Greek-life membership, study-abroad participation, athletic-team participation, marching-band participation, and ROTC participation typically contains assumption-of-risk and indemnification provisions. Attack vectors: the foundational university-supervisory-duty case Furek v. University of Delaware establishes that a university owes a duty of care to its students that cannot be contractually waived where the university has actual or constructive notice of a pattern of hazing conduct. Knoll v. University of Nebraska establishes foreseeability of third-party criminal conduct. Title IX claims (where applicable to sex-based hazing or sexual assault) cannot be waived.

Greek-organization national-headquarters releases (signed at chapter initiation) face analogous attack vectors. Texas Education Code § 37.153 imposes vicarious liability on organizations that condone or sanction hazing. The Bermudez complaint names the Pi Kappa Phi national headquarters as a defendant and seeks damages exceeding ten million dollars; the case is the active live test of the modern Texas vicarious-liability framework.

I.5 The Universal Indemnification Trap

Every commercial-recreational waiver — every trampoline-park waiver, every gym waiver, every ski-resort waiver, every paintball waiver, every kart waiver, every rideshare terms-of-service, every fraternity-pledge release, every school-permission slip — contains an indemnification provision. The provision is structurally identical across the industry: the patron (or, in the case of a minor, the parent) “defends, indemnifies, and holds harmless” the operator and its affiliates against any claim “arising out of” the patron’s use of the facility — including a claim brought by the patron’s own family for the operator’s own negligence.

The indemnification provision is the single most-overlooked clause in commercial-recreational adhesion contracts. It does not eliminate the family’s right to sue. It transforms the family’s lawsuit into a parent-pays-the-operator’s-defense-costs liability. In effect, the family’s victory becomes the family’s expense.

The indemnification provision is unenforceable as to a minor’s claim under the Utah Supreme Court’s holding in Hawkins v. Peart — and the same reasoning extends, by analogy, to any state in which parental waiver of a minor’s tort claim is independently barred. The doctrinal logic is straightforward: if a parent cannot waive the minor’s claim, the parent cannot indemnify the operator against the minor’s claim. To hold otherwise would let operators circumvent the minor-waiver-void rule by routing the claim through the indemnification provision instead of the release provision.

Plaintiff counsel attacking any commercial-recreational waiver should plead the indemnification void argument as a separate count. The indemnification provision is the operator’s most-leveraged hidden weapon. Striking it is the hidden victory inside every successful trampoline-park, gym, or ski-resort case.

Volume J — Source Ledger

Every authority cited in this appendix is mapped here to a credibility tier. The tiers reflect the source’s evidentiary weight in litigation and its reliability for parent-education and journalistic purposes. The ledger is the firm’s working tool for auditing citations and defending any claim made in derivative content. Where a source is contested or has been superseded, the ledger says so.

Tier A — Binding Precedent and Statute (highest authority)

United States Supreme Court decisions: Rent-A-Center v. Jackson; Daubert v. Merrell Dow; Chandris v. Latsis; McDermott v. Wilander; Miles v. Apex Marine; Dutra Group v. Batterton; State Farm v. Campbell; Erie R.R. v. Tompkins; Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend.

State Supreme Court decisions: Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air (Tex. 2025); Santiago / Shultz (Pa. 2025); Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park (N.J. 2006); Alicea v. Activelaf (La. 2016); BJ’s Wholesale Club v. Rosen (Md. 2013); Cooper v. Aspen Skiing (Colo. 2002, superseded by statute); Galloway v. State (Iowa 2010); Hawkins v. Peart (Utah 2001); Hanks v. Powder Ridge (Conn. 2005); Kirton v. Fields (Fla. 2008); Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort (Wash. 1992); Woodman v. Kera LLC (Mich. 2010); Flanzman v. Jenny Craig (N.J. 2020); Tunkl v. UC Regents (Cal. 1963); City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (Cal. 2007); Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel (Tex. 1994); G.A. Stowers Furniture (Tex. Comm’n App. 1929 holding approved); Haygood v. De Escobedo (Tex. 2011); Furek v. University of Delaware; Knoll v. University of Nebraska; E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Robinson (Tex. 1995); Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge (Tex. 2014).

Federal statutes: Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16); Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104); LHWCA; OCSLA; DOHSA; Stop Campus Hazing Act of 2024; Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)); Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681).

Federal regulations: 49 C.F.R. Parts 350–399 (FMCSA); 49 C.F.R. Part 40 (DOT drug/alcohol); 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 (OSHA general industry); 29 C.F.R. Part 1926 (OSHA construction); CPSC Section 15(b); USCG marine-casualty regulations.

Texas statutes: CPRC § 16.001; CPRC § 16.003; CPRC Chapter 33; CPRC Chapter 41; CPRC § 71.002; CPRC § 71.021; CPRC Chapter 95; CPRC Chapter 101; Tex. Family Code § 153.073; Tex. Education Code Chapter 37, Subchapter F; Tex. Occupations Code Chapter 2151; Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02.

State hazing statutes: Tim Piazza Antihazing Law (Pa. 2018); Max Gruver Act (La. 2018); Collin’s Law (Ohio 2021); Chad Meredith Act (Fla.).

State minor-waiver statutes: Fla. Stat. § 744.301; C.R.S. § 13-22-107; M.C.L. § 700.5109; N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-326.

Tier B — Persuasive Authority (intermediate appellate, federal district, AAA awards)

State intermediate appellate decisions: Blackwell v. Sky High Sports (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017); Gayles v. Sky Zone (N.J. App. Div. 2021); Johnson v. Sky Zone Springfield, Lawrence v. Sky Zone, Richardson v. Sky Zone (N.J. App. Div. 2021); Perez v. Sky Zone (N.J. App. Div. 2022); Coppi v. Urban Air (N.J. App. Div. 2025); Beaumont Adventure Park v. Geter (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024); Bite Entertainment v. Trevino (Tex. App.—San Antonio [4th Dist.] 2024); Delfingen v. Valenzuela (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013); Torres v. House of Air (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Federal district decisions: Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp., 76 F. Supp. 2d 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

Arbitration awards: Collins v. Urban Air Adventure Park AAA Award No. 01-22-0001-5781 (Sept. 14, 2023).

Tier C — Industry Standards and Agency Findings

ASTM F2970-25 (current edition; supersedes -22 and -15); IATP certifications; API RP 752 (4th ed., Jan 2024); API RP 753 (2nd ed., Jan 2024); API RP 754; CVSA Out-of-Service Criteria; Smith System; ASTM F1487; BSI PAS 5000:2017; the U.S. Chemical Safety Board BP Texas City final report; OSHA Severe Injury Reports; FMCSA SAFER Company Snapshot; FMCSA Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts; CPSC Recalls; CPSC NEISS; SaferProducts.gov; USCG Accident Reports; NHTSA FARS.

Tier D — Peer-Reviewed Research and Non-Profit Authority

American Academy of Pediatrics: 2012 trampoline-safety policy statement, reaffirmed 2025. Hank Nuwer, the canonical national hazing-deaths database: hanknuwer.com; 1838–1999 archive; 2000-to-present record. StopHazing.org; Hazing Prevention Network; Clery Center.

Tier E — Investigative Journalism (authentication-required)

Boston 25 News “25 Investigates” — Massachusetts Sky Zone EMS-call pattern. 6ABC Philadelphia Action News — Delaware Valley 911-dispatch records. KPIX / Bay Area local reporting — Bay Area emergency-response data. ABC15 Phoenix and the Arizona Republic — post-Ty’s-Law reporting gap. KIRO Seattle — Washington L&I worker-violation series. First Alert 4 (St. Louis) — Sky Zone Ballwin shooting incident. Click2Houston, ABC13, and Hoodline — Bermudez v. UH coverage. Investigative-journalism authority is admissible only with a proper authentication record but is essential to the foreseeability narrative.

Tier F — Free Legal Reference Aggregators (citation-only)

Cornell Legal Information Institute; CourtListener / Free Law Project; Justia; govinfo.gov; U.S. Code via House.gov; eCFR; Texas statutes via statutes.capitol.texas.gov; Texas court opinions; Texas Supreme Court orders and opinions.

Tier G — Treatises and Restatements

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A; § 323; § 324A; Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability; Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability; Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.); Dobbs, The Law of Torts (3d ed.); Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law; Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries (4th ed.).

Appendix — The First 72 Hours After a Catastrophic Injury

If you or someone you love has just been injured in a Texas trampoline park, on a commercial-trucking crash scene, on an offshore vessel, at a refinery or petrochemical facility, on a construction site, or at a fraternity or sorority house — the first three days matter more than any other three days in the case. The list below is a universal triage card. It applies whether the injury arose at Cosmic Jump or a Houston Ship Channel refinery or a Pi Kappa Phi chapter house at the University of Houston. Read it, save it, and follow it.

1. Get medical care immediately. If you are not sure whether the injury is serious, treat it as if it is. Pediatric and adult-onset cervical-spine injury, traumatic brain injury, and rhabdomyolysis can present with deceptively mild initial symptoms and progress rapidly. Go to a Level 1 trauma center where one is available. In Houston, that means Texas Children’s, Children’s Memorial Hermann, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, or Ben Taub. In Austin, Dell Children’s Medical Center or Dell Seton Medical Center. In Dallas, Children’s Medical Center Dallas, Cook Children’s Fort Worth, or Parkland. In San Antonio, University Hospital. In El Paso, El Paso Children’s Hospital. In Beaumont, Christus Southeast Texas, with helicopter or interstate transfer to Houston for the most severe cases.
2. Photograph everything. The injury, the equipment, the scene, the vehicle, the worksite, the chapter house, the foam pit, the trampoline mat, the inspection log if visible, the surveillance camera if visible, the names and badges of staff present, the wristband worn by the patron, the shoes the patron wore. Take fifty photographs. Then take fifty more. Photographs taken within minutes of an incident can never be re-created.
3. Preserve the physical evidence. Do not surrender the patron’s clothing, shoes, hardware, equipment, or vehicle. Do not let the operator clean up the scene before independent inspection. If the operator demands that you leave or hands you a release form to “settle on the spot,” refuse and call counsel.
4. Do not sign anything. Not a release. Not a waiver. Not a settlement. Not a “non-disclosure agreement.” Not a “we will pay your medical bills if you sign this” form. Anything offered for a signature in the first seventy-two hours is offered because the operator’s risk-management department has identified an exposure and is trying to extinguish it cheaply.
5. Do not give a recorded statement. Insurance adjusters routinely call within hours of an incident asking for “just a quick recorded statement.” The recorded statement becomes locked-in testimony. Decline politely and refer the adjuster to counsel.
6. Do not post on social media. Do not describe the incident on Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Snapchat, Threads, Discord, or any other platform. The defense will subpoena every public and private post made before, during, and after the incident. Even an “I’m fine” post can be quoted out of context to undercut a damages claim. If you have already posted, do not delete — deletion can be argued as spoliation of evidence. Stop posting and tell counsel what is already up.
7. Save every receipt, every record, every text message. Copays, prescriptions, gas to and from medical visits, parking, household help, missed work, and any text message that names the incident, the operator, the supervisor, the witness, or the medical provider. The economic-damages record is built from receipts.
8. Identify the witnesses. Names, phone numbers, email addresses, employers, relationships to the injured party. Witness recollection fades within weeks; the most accurate witness statement is the one taken on the day of the incident.
9. Call The Manginello Law Firm at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We will send a preservation-of-evidence letter to the operator within twenty-four hours of your call, every time, no exceptions. If you would prefer to speak in Spanish, ask for Lupe Peña directly.
10. Do not wait. Texas’s two-year statute of limitations on personal-injury claims is one of the shortest in the United States. Surveillance video at a trampoline park is overwritten in seven to fourteen days. Engine Control Module data on a commercial vehicle is overwritten in approximately thirty days. Marine-casualty investigation files become harder to access as the USCG inquiry advances. Hazing chapter-member chat records can be deleted within hours. Every day matters.

Appendix — How to Cite This Reference

Citations to this appendix follow the firm-publication conventions used in modern American legal-trade publishing. The recommended citation form for academic, journalistic, or legal-brief reference is:

Ralph P. Manginello & Lupe Peña, The Texas Personal Injury Legal Appendix and Glossary: Cases, Statutes, Regulations, Definitions, Injury Taxonomy, Jurisdictional Matrix, and Statistics, Attorney 911 / The Manginello Law Firm (May 2, 2026), https://attorney911.com/texas-personal-injury-legal-appendix-glossary/.

Cross-references within the appendix use the Volume-and-section convention (for example, “Volume A.1 — Cosmic Jump“; “Volume E.1 — minor-waiver enforceability”; “Volume F.7 — Rule Vacuum Index”). Every named case, statute, regulation, term, and party has a stable HTML anchor for deep-linking. The recommended deep-link form is the canonical URL plus the anchor (for example, https://attorney911.com/texas-personal-injury-legal-appendix-glossary/#case-cosmic-jump-houston-2013).

The appendix is continuously maintained. Substantive updates are dated in Volume J — Source Ledger. The first publication date is May 2, 2026; the last update date is reflected in the byline on this page.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm

If your family has been injured anywhere in Texas — at a trampoline park, on a Texas freeway, at a refinery or petrochemical facility, on a Gulf-Coast vessel, on a construction site, or at a fraternity or sorority house at any Texas college or university — call us. The consultation is free. We do not collect a fee unless we win. We send a preservation-of-evidence letter within twenty-four hours of your call. If you would prefer to speak in Spanish, ask for Lupe Peña.

Attorney 911 / The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC

Phone: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911) — twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

Direct line: (713) 528-9070.

Email: ralph@atty911.com · lupe@atty911.com

Website: attorney911.com · attorney911.com/contact/

Houston headquarters: 1177 West Loop South, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77027. Houston second location: 1635 Dunlavy Street, Houston, Texas 77006. Austin office: 316 West 12th Street, Suite 311, Austin, Texas 78701. Beaumont: by appointment for Jefferson County and Golden Triangle matters.

Languages: English and Spanish. Hablamos Español. Llame al 1-888-ATTY-911 y pregunte por Lupe Peña. La consulta es gratis. No cobramos honorarios a menos que ganemos su caso.

Practice areas covered in this appendix: Texas trampoline-park injury · fraternity, sorority, marching-band, Corps of Cadets, athletic-team, and K-12 hazing · 18-wheeler and commercial-vehicle accidents · maritime, Jones Act, and offshore oilfield injury · refinery and petrochemical-plant disasters · construction and workplace accidents · catastrophic personal injury · wrongful death · premises liability and slip-and-fall · dog bite · motorcycle, bus, and garbage-truck accidents · auto accidents and whiplash · uninsured / underinsured-motorist matters.

Texas-anchored, nationwide-where-the-defendant-is. When a Texas-corporate-headquartered defendant — Urban Air in Bedford, Altitude in Fort Worth, BP / Marathon in Texas City, ExxonMobil in Baytown, Walmart Transportation in Bentonville, Werner in Omaha, or any other defendant whose corporate domicile, headquarters, or operational footprint is reachable through Texas long-arm jurisdiction or through federal-court diversity — has injured a client anywhere in the United States, we evaluate the matter and, where the facts and the contingency-fee economics warrant, we represent the family. The four corners of Texas are not the four corners of our practice.

About this appendix. This is the most comprehensive Texas personal-injury legal reference on the open web. It is anchored in the active Bermudez v. University of Houston hazing matter, in the largest reported United States commercial-trampoline-park jury verdict (the $11.485 million Cosmic Jump Harris County award), and in the BP Texas City refinery disaster. It is honest because it is written from the side of the people who get hurt — and we do not pretend otherwise. Where the law is unsettled, the appendix says so. Where a defense argument is strong, the appendix says so. Where another plaintiff’s firm originated a doctrine or won a leading verdict, the appendix credits the case and the court without linking out to that firm. Every external link in this appendix points to a government agency, a court, an industry standards body, a non-profit research organization, or canonical reporting of record. The appendix never links to another personal-injury law firm.

Final note. The information in this appendix is educational. It is not legal advice. Citations to cases, statutes, and regulations are accurate as of the publication date but jurisdiction-specific outcomes depend on facts only an attorney can evaluate. To discuss any specific Texas personal-injury matter — at any hour — call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. The contingency is no fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.