Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1736 (2026)

Acceptance of dangers.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TRAMPOLINE COURT SAFETY ACT

Act 11 of 2014

691.1736 Acceptance of dangers.

Sec. 6.

An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries that result from collisions with other trampoliners or other spectators, injuries that result from falls, injuries that result from landing on the trampoline, pad, or platform, and injuries that involve objects or artificial structures properly within the intended travel of the trampoliner that are not otherwise attributable to the operator's breach of his or her common law duties.

History: 2014, Act 11, Imd. Eff. Feb. 18, 2014

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2018–2024 · leading case: Kenneth Bertin v. Douglas Mann, 918 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kenneth Bertin v. Douglas Mann, 918 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 2018). “82126(8) (providing that individuals participating in snowmobiling accept "risks associated with that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and inherent," including the risk of injuries arising from both natural and artificial objects); MCL 691.1736 (providing that…”

Scott Redmond v. Spring Loaded I LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “[MCL 691.1736.]1 Despite this provision, if an injured plaintiff establishes a violation of one of the specific duties of care imposed under the act, the plaintiff may recover damages to the extent that the defendant’s violations caused the injury.”

Scott Redmond v. Spring Loaded I LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “MCL 691.1736 provides: An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary.”

Raphaela Allen v. Spring Loaded I LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” MCL 691.1736 provides: An individual who participates in trampolining accepts the danger that inheres in that activity insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary.”

C Raphaela Allen v. Spring Loaded I LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “However, Trampoline court operators are expressly required to comply with certain safety design and maintenance standards. MCL 691.1733(b)-(c). The risks inherent in an activity do not necessarily include risks caused by improper design or maintenance of that activity’s…”

Joshua Ray Cavins v. Bat Com. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 691.1736.] -5- MCL 691.1737 provides that “[a] trampoliner, spectator, or operator who violates this act is liable in a civil action for damages for the portion of the loss or damage that results from the violation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.