June 2011 - Parks & Recreation - 37

By James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D.

law review

Liability for Open S-Hook
on Playground Swing

he Public Playground Safety Handbook issued by the U.S. Consumer Prod-

uct Safety Commission (2008) provides a recommended guideline that " [a]
ll hooks, such as S-hooks and C-hooks, should be closed. " As described in
the CPSC handbook, " S-hooks are often part of a swing's suspension system, either
attaching the suspending elements to the overhead support bar or to the swing seat. "
In directing that " S-hooks should be pinched closed, " the CPSC handbook notes that
" [a]n S-hook is considered closed if there is no gap or space greater than 0.04 inches
(about the thickness of a dime). "
In the case of Wright v. City of Lebanon (Tenn.
App. 3/1/2011), the issue before the state appeals
court was whether sufficient evidence existed on the
record to support the trial court's determination that
a swing in a city park " was in a dangerous or defective condition " due to an open S-hook. The facts of
the case were as follows:
On Saturday, April 15, 2006, fourteen-year-old
Charles Justin Wright attended a birthday party at
Don Fox Park in Lebanon, Tennessee, with his
mother, stepfather, sister, and cousin. The park is
owned and maintained by the City of Lebanon.
Wright was injured while swinging on the swings
at the park. The plaintiff claims that a hook attaching the seat of the swing to the chain came loose as
he was swinging, and as a result, he fell and broke
his ankle.
Wright's stepfather, Bedford Allison, testified that
he inspected the swing shortly after the accident
while he was waiting with Wright for his mother to
come over. He stated that " the S-hook at the bottom
of the swing [chain] appeared to be stretched out. "
Thus, he could " only assume the chain came out of
the S-hook. " Allison testified that the S-hook was
stretched out as wide as his pinky, which he estimated to be one-quarter to one-half inch. Allison
stated that, in his job as a commercial driver, he
had occasion to work with chains and S-hooks " every day for the last 12 years. " He also had
experience with them working in construction and

growing up on a farm.
Sandra Lascher Zires was the only disinterested
party present at the time of the accident. She was
pushing her daughter on the same swing set on
which Wright and his cousin were swinging when
Wright fell. Zires testified that the boys were swinging in a normal manner and that Wright was
swinging at a " medium " height. Zires testified that,
when she looked up after the accident, the seat of
the swing was hanging down... At some point, she
inspected the swing. When asked what her impression was of what had gone wrong with the swing,
Zires testified, " Well, I kind of expected a chain to
be broken, but there wasn't. It was just an S-hook,
I'm guessing, came off. I don't know. It didn't appear to be broken. "

Wright
contended
that " the City
had a duty to
conduct
reasonable
and customary
inspections of
the swing and
failed to do
so. "

Plaintiff Wright through his mother brought suit
against the City pursuant to the state torts claims act
(Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn.
Code Ann. § 29- 20-101 et seq.) Wright's complaint
alleged that " the condition of the swing created a
dangerous or defective condition, the City had constructive and/or actual notice of the dangerous or defective condition. " In so doing, Wright claimed " the
City was negligent in failing to maintain and/or properly repair the swing. " Specifically, Wright contended that " the City had a duty to conduct reasonable
and customary inspections of the swing and failed
to do so. "
In response, the City denied any liability, arguing

www . N R P A . O R G

J U NE 2 0 1 1

Parks & Recreation 35

June 2011 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2011 - Parks & Recreation