IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ISABELLA KIRK, A MINOR, BY HER PARENT
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ROBERT KIRK,
PLAINTIFF,
CASE NO: _____________
VS. DIVISION: _____
SZ ORLAND PARK, LLC D/B/A
SKY ZONE PENSACOLA,
DEFENDANT.
__________________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Isabella Kirk, a minor, (hereinafter referred to as Isabella or Plaintiff) by her
parent and natural guardian, Robert Kirk, sues Defendant, SZ Orland Park, LLC D/B/A Sky Zone
Pensacola (hereinafter referred to as Sky Zone or Defendant) and alleges:
1. This is an action for damages in excess of $ 15,000.00.
2. That at all times material hereto, Defendant, Sky Zone, was a for-profit, foreign
Limited Liability Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware and was doing business in Escambia County, Florida.
3. That at all times hereto Plaintiff was located in Escambia County, Florida.
4. On or about October 19, 2019, Defendant, owned, operated, managed, maintained,
and/or otherwise controlled Sky Zone Pensacola located at 5007 North Davis
Highway, Pensacola, Florida.
5. Sky Zone is an extreme trampoline park open to the general public.
6. Sky Zone contains an area named “Stunt Fall” where business invitees can climb
up stairs and jump off of a platform and land into a bladder.
Page 1 of 5
7. The bladder in the “Stunt Fall” area is supposed to be full of air and protect invitees
from injury.
8. Prior to October 19, 2019, Defendant and Defendant's employees had received
multiple complaints of injuries suffered by individuals utilizing the facility
mentioned above.
9. Prior to October 19, 2019, ambulances had been called to the Sky Zone facility on
multiple occasions to provide medical care and transportation to the hospital.
10. At the time and place stated above, Isabella jumped off of the platform in the “Stunt
Fall” area.
11. At the time and place stated above, the bladder was not filled with the appropriate
amount of air, causing Isabella to suffer severe injuries to both of her legs.
12. At the time and place stated above, Defendant had a duty to use reasonable care in
the ownership, operation, supervision, management, maintenance, and control of
the Stunt Fall area.
13. At the time and place stated above, Defendant negligently breached the duty owed
to invitees in one or more of the following respects:
(a) by failing to operate the Stunt Fall area in a reasonably safe manner;
(b) by failing to establish appropriate procedures, rules and regulations for
employees to follow in addressing foreseeable, dangerous usage of the Stunt
Fall area by invitees;
(c) by failing to establish appropriate safety rules and regulations for the use of
the Stunt Fall area;
Page 2 of 5
(d) by failing to enforce the manufacturers rules and prohibitions regarding the
Stunt Fall area in accordance with the User's Manual;
(e) by failing to establish or implement appropriate procedures to ensure that
employees were trained to provide appropriate instruction and warning to
invitees with regard to the safe and proper use the Stunt Fall area;
(f) by failing to supervise and/or adequately supervise and control the conduct
of employees in and about enforcement of safety rules and regulations that
where in effect at the Stunt Fall area;
(g) by failing to provide an adequate number of qualified and sufficiently
trained employees to properly supervise individuals utilizing the Stunt Fall
area;
(h) by failing to train and educate employees in the recognition and prevention
of unsafe practices with regard to the Stunt Fall area;
(i) by failing to appraise invitees of safety rules and regulations before allowing
business invitees to jump off of the Stunt Fall platform into the bladder;
(j) by failing to enforce its own safety rules and regulations;
(k) by failing to warn and educate invitees about the dangers and risks
associated with extreme trampoline parks and allowing them to use the
subject Stunt Fall area;
(l) by failing to adequately or accurately warn and educate invitees about the
dangers and risks associated with the Stunt Fall area;
(m) by failing to hire qualified monitors, referees, and/or supervisors to ensure
the safety of individuals using the Stunt Fall area;
Page 3 of 5
(n) by failing to properly and/or adequately train monitors, referees, and/or
supervisors in the appropriate use and inappropriate use of the Stunt Fall
area;
(o) by allowing and authorizing invitees to participate in the Stunt Fall area
that the Defendant knew or should have known was likely to cause serious
injury;
(p) by failing to notify and/or warn invitees of safety hazards associated with
the use of the Stunt Fall area;
(q) by failing to provide any written, oral, or audio-visual instruction or
guidance concerning the safe and unsafe usage of the Stunt Fall area;
(r) by violating its own standards and the standard of care when they exposed
Plaintiff to enhanced risks and hidden dangers that were known to the
Defendant but not known to the Plaintiff or to the parents or guardians of
the Plaintiff when the Defendant ignored their own standard of care and
allowed Plaintiff to participate in the Stunt Fall area when the bladder was
not full of the appropriate amount of air.
(s) by the inaction of employees overseeing participants in the Stunt Fall area,
the Defendants blatantly ignored the safety and welfare of the Plaintiff and
exposed the Plaintiff to an enhanced risk and hidden danger that was known
or should have been known by the Defendant.
(t) by failing to maintain the equipment and air bladder in the Stunt Fall area
in the manner required by its manufacturer; and
Page 4 of 5
(u) by failing to maintain the equipment and air bladder in the Stunt Fall area
in the manner which would prevent injuries to its invitees.
14. As a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff sustained injuries
causing temporary and permanent disability, disfigurement, and loss of bodily
function and loss of bodily member in whole or in part, has incurred or in the future
will incur expenses for the treatment of said injuries, has been disabled and in the
future will be disabled and not able to perform his usual functions and has been
caused and in the future will be caused great pain and suffering, and has impaired
his earning capacity and enjoyment of life, and has otherwise been permanently
damaged.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for compensatory
damages in excess of $ 15,000.00 and for such further relief as the court deems equitable and just
and a trial by jury.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artice L. McGraw
Florida Bar No.: 112267
917 North 12th Avenue
Pensacola, Florida 32501
(850) 438-4036
ArticeLMcGraw@[Link]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Page 5 of 5
