Negligence related to a bounce house; Standard of care; Industry standards; Schultz v Consumers Power Co; Breach; Business invitee; Lane v B & J Theatres, Inc; Cause in fact; Proximate cause; Ray v Swager

The court held that plaintiff raised jury-submissible questions of breach and causation in his negligence action arising from a bounce-house injury. Plaintiff, an adult visitor at defendant’s indoor play facility, entered a Scooby-Doo bounce house with a child, performed one backflip successfully, then injured his neck while attempting a second one. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant, concluding that plaintiff could not establish breach or proximate cause. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff was a business invitee and that defendant owed him a duty to exercise reasonable care for his protection. The court next held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to breach because plaintiff presented industry standards requiring an inflatable amusement device to be supervised by a trained operator or attendant, and “‘custom and industry practices are relevant to the issue of due care[.]’” Although those standards were not negligence per se, they were evidence of the applicable standard of care. The court also held that plaintiff created a factual question on causation through his affidavit stating that, had an employee blown a whistle and told him flips were not allowed after the first flip, he would not have attempted the second. Because the injury was the general type of harm risked by failing to supervise and intervene, summary disposition was improper. Reversed and remanded.