A physiotherapist has won more than $700,000 in damages after breaking his foot jumping on a trampoline. 

Phillip Forostenko sued Springfree Trampoline Australia after suffering a “dancer’s fracture” – a fifth metatarsal break – in his right foot. He was seeking about $3.9 million in compensation. 

The “experienced and enthusiastic user and owner of trampolines” was hurt while trying the newly installed O92 Springfree model at his sister’s house on Christmas Day in 2017, Queensland Supreme Court heard. 

He said he had been jumping for about a minute when a wayward bounce took him towards the edge of the mat, where his foot landed on top of a plastic cleat. These cleats are placed around the underside of the mat and form part of the ball joints that create the spring-free bounce mechanism. 

In her ruling, Justice Melanie Hindman found the cleat “tipping” as the mat depressed rolled Mr Forostenko’s foot and caused the dancer’s fracture – a break “usually only suffered where sufficient force is applied to an externally rotated (or rolled or inverted) forefoot”. 

In finding that the trampoline had a safety defect, she said: “I do consider that adults using trampolines well understand the risk on a trampoline of landing awkwardly (on any part of the trampoline) and thereby suffering a foot injury, without any type of warning being given.  

“Jumping on any trampoline carries a risk of many different types of injuries because of the dynamic nature of the user interaction. No trampoline is inherently safe. 

“With this trampoline, the shape of the top of the cleat (to a small degree) and the fact of the cleat operating as a ball joint (to a significant degree) meant that depending on how users landed on a cleat, the cleat had the potential to cause or contribute to an inversion of the forefoot, such that with the force of the mat depressing ... users were at increased risk of a foot injury, including a dancer’s fracture. That fact, together with the lack of a warning about that particular feature of the trampoline’s design, was a safety defect.” 

Mr Forostenko told the court he suffers continuing pain and discomfort that has limited his ability to work in his physically demanding job, and to engage in sports and other leisure activities that were a key part of his life. 

This has in turn taken a toll on his mental health and his home life, he said. 

But the judge found his evidence “prone to exaggeration, particularly where he considered that may be advantageous to his claim”, and says she does not share his “pessimistic view of his ability to continue in his chosen profession”. 

She awarded $744,175 in damages, including $225,000 for future economic loss.