In Lykins v. Fun Spot Trampolines, 172 Ohio App.3d 226, 2007 Ohio 1800, 874 N.E.2d 811, the plaintiff attended a party at the home of her cousins, Michael and Marry Thompson. 172 Ohio App. 3d 226, 2007 Ohio 1800, P2, 874 N.E.2d 811. That evening, Lykins and four other guests, decided to use the Thompsons' large circular trampoline located in the backyard as she had on several previous occasions. Id. at P3. While standing on the perimeter of the trampoline as her brother jumped in the middle, Lykins lost her balance and fell on her back. Id. at P5. Lykins sustained a broken neck and crushed spinal cord, rendering her quadriplegic. Id. In reviewing the applicability of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, this court found that the risks that caused Lykins' injury were not foreseeable as a matter of law. Id. at P35. This court noted that when engaging in a recreational activity, a participant can only assume the "ordinary risks" of the activity. Id. Specifically, this court found that "the dangers allegedly giving rise to appellant's injury include the hard, inflexible surface of the trampoline mat caused by the presence of more than 225 pounds and a double bounce created by more than one person using the trampoline at one time." Id. These risks were "not inherent in normal trampoline use." Id. at P36. "While falling down, colliding with others, or potentially falling off the apparatus altogether may be foreseeable risks in trampoline use, we cannot find as a matter of law that the same is true for the conditions at issue here, given the facts of this case." Id.