CJ-2026-139 - Wyatt A. Battiato v. Ground Control Park Yukon, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: people don’t usually sue trampoline parks for $75,000 because they had a great time. But Wyatt Battiato didn’t just bounce wrong—he allegedly launched down a slide like a human torpedo, only to be greeted at the bottom by what can only be described as a sad, half-deflated bouncy castle. The result? A broken leg, a torn tendon, and a lawsuit that’s equal parts tragic and wildly avoidable. This isn’t just about a guy who got hurt at a trampoline park—it’s about whether a company ignored basic safety rules while raking in cash from kids (and adults) flying through the air like caffeinated kangaroos.

So who are we talking about here? On one side, you’ve got Wyatt A. Battiato, a regular guy from El Reno, Oklahoma, who showed up at Ground Control Trampoline Park in Yukon looking for fun, not a medical diagnosis. He paid his admission, signed whatever waiver they shoved in his hand (we’ll get to that), and trusted the staff to keep him from, you know, shattering his leg. On the other side is Ground Control Park Yukon, LLC—the corporate entity behind the chaos. This isn’t some mom-and-pop bounce house operation; this is a full-blown trampoline park with slides, mats, inflatables, and presumably, a waiver the size of a mortgage contract. They’re supposed to be the grown-ups in the room, the ones checking that equipment works, that air pressure is good, and that nobody’s sliding into a deflated death trap.

Now, let’s walk through the disaster. It was April 22, 2025—a perfectly normal Tuesday, probably with decent weather and zero warning signs that this day would end with X-rays and legal paperwork. Wyatt decides to try the slide. Not the foam pit. Not the dodgeball court. Just a simple slide. But this isn’t your backyard plastic slide—it’s one of those high-speed, mat-assisted, slippery-when-you’re-terrified attractions where you lie face-down like a skydiver and hope for the best. The staff? They didn’t stop him. In fact, they instructed him to go prone. So Wyatt, trusting the process (and possibly peer pressure), launches himself down the ramp on a mat, expecting to land on a big, bouncy, properly inflated balloon or landing pad.

Spoiler: it wasn’t.

The petition claims the inflatable at the bottom was “not properly inflated,” “inadequately pressurized,” and “failed to provide a reasonably safe landing surface.” That’s legalese for: it was flat. Or close enough. So instead of a soft, forgiving bounce, Wyatt hits something closer to a yoga mat over concrete. The result? A fractured left tibia (that’s your shin bone, in case you skipped anatomy class) and a torn tendon in his left foot. Ouch. Imagine paying $20 to jump around for an hour and ending up with a cast, crutches, and a doctor telling you, “Yep, you’ll need surgery.”

So why is this in court? Because Wyatt’s lawyer, Greg S. Keogh of Parrish DeVaughn, PLLC, is arguing that this wasn’t just a “you knew the risks” kind of accident. Nope. This was negligence. And not just regular negligence—gross negligence and recklessness. That’s the legal equivalent of saying, “You didn’t just mess up. You were actively ignoring danger like a villain in a workplace safety training video.” The claim is that Ground Control had a duty to keep the park safe, inspect the equipment, maintain proper inflation, and stop people from using broken attractions. They allegedly failed on all counts. They didn’t check the pad. They didn’t fix it. They didn’t shut down the slide. And worst of all, they let Wyatt go down it in the exact way they told him to, only for the landing zone to betray him like a backstabbing friend in a reality competition show.

Now, Wyatt isn’t asking for millions. He’s seeking over $75,000—specifically for medical bills (past and future), pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost income, and the general crumminess of having your life derailed by a trampoline park slide. Is $75,000 a lot? In the grand scheme of personal injury cases, it’s not earth-shattering. But for a company that likely charges $15–$25 per person for an hour of bouncing, it’s enough to sting. Especially when you consider they’re also being hit with a demand for punitive damages—money not to compensate Wyatt, but to punish the company for reckless behavior. That’s the legal version of a public shaming with a side of financial penalty. And under Oklahoma law, if a company shows “reckless disregard” for safety, courts can slap them with extra penalties. So this isn’t just about fixing a broken leg—it’s about making sure no one else gets treated like a test dummy.

Here’s the kicker: trampoline parks are supposed to be fun. They’re where birthday parties go to die (in the best way), where parents drop off their kids for two hours of controlled chaos, and where adults rediscover the joy of bouncing like toddlers. But with that fun comes responsibility. You can’t sell adrenaline and then skip the safety checks. You can’t tell people to slide headfirst and then not make sure the landing is soft. And you definitely can’t act surprised when someone gets hurt because you were too busy counting cash to check the air pressure.

Our take? Look, accidents happen. People fall. That’s why we have waivers, helmets, and warning signs. But this isn’t a case of someone attempting a backflip and missing. This is a systemic failure. The park allegedly let a known hazard stay active. They instructed the plaintiff on how to use the slide—only for the safety equipment to fail. And now, instead of a quick fix and a sincere apology, we’ve got a jury trial demand and a claim for punitive damages. The most absurd part? That any business thinks it’s okay to cut corners on something as basic as an inflated landing pad. This isn’t rocket science. It’s air. You pump it in. You check it. You keep people safe.

We’re not saying trampoline parks should be sued every time someone stubs a toe. But when a company profits off controlled risk, they better control the risk. Otherwise, they’re not running a recreational facility—they’re running a liability with snack sales. And honestly? We’re rooting for the guy with the broken leg. Not because we love lawsuits, but because we love accountability. If you’re going to sell bounce, you better make sure the landing’s soft. Otherwise, the only thing going boing is your legal bill.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Greg S. Keogh

Parrish DeVaughn, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Wyatt A. Battiato individual
Rep: Greg S. Keogh

Defendants

Ground Control Park Yukon, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence, Gross Negligence and/or Recklessness	Plaintiff injured at trampoline park due to inadequate safety measures

Petition Text

924 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA WYATT A. BATTIATO, ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) ) ) ) GROUND CONTROL PARK YUKON, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Defendant. Case No. CJ-2026-139 PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Wyatt A. Battiato ("Plaintiff"), by and through his attorney of record, Greg S. Keogh of Parrish DeVaughn, PLLC, and for his cause of action against Defendant, Ground Control Park Yukon, LLC ("Defendant"), alleges and states as follows: VENUE AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff is a resident of El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1700 Health Center Pkwy, Yukon, OK 73099, and can be served in the care of Defendant’s registered agent, Brad Downing, located at 1700 Health Center Pkwy, Yukon, OK 73099, or wherever they may be found. 3. The instant accident occurred on or about April 22, 2025, in Yukon, Oklahoma. 4. Venue is proper in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma, and the Court has jurisdiction over the parties. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Ground Control Trampoline Park is located in Yukon, Oklahoma, and is a recreational trampoline facility which includes various recreational equipment and attractions for patrons. 6. At the time of the subject incident, Defendant owned, operated, maintained, supervised, and controlled Ground Control Trampoline Park and all equipment, attractions, and landing surfaces located therein. 7. On or about April 22, 2025, Plaintiff was lawfully present at Ground Control Trampoline Park, having paid admission and/or otherwise been invited to use Defendant’s facilities. 8. One of the attractions at Defendant’s facility included a slide designed for patrons to descend using a mat, landing on an inflatable balloon or landing pad at the bottom of the slide. 9. Plaintiff was instructed and/or permitted by Defendant and its employees to slide down the attraction on a mat in a prone (stomach-down) position. 10. At the time Plaintiff used the slide, the inflatable balloon/landing pad at the base of the slide was not properly inflated, was inadequately pressurized, and/or otherwise failed to provide a reasonably safe landing surface. 11. As Plaintiff descended the slide in the manner intended and permitted by Defendant, he landed on the inadequately inflated balloon/landing pad, causing excessive and unsafe force to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s body. 12. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff sustained a fracture of his left tibia and torn tendon in his left foot, along with pain, suffering, and other associated injuries. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND/OR RECKLESSNESS Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded. 13. As the owner and operator of Ground Control Trampoline Park, Defendant—the invitor—owed a duty to Plaintiff—the invitee—to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any hidden dangers. 14. Defendant also owed a duty to properly inspect, maintain, inflate, monitor, and/or repair its equipment, including the inflatable landing pad at the bottom of the slide. 15. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that the landing pad was not properly inflated and posed an unreasonable risk of harm to patrons. 16. Defendant breached its duties of care by, including but not limit to: • Failing to properly inflate and maintain the landing pad; • Failing to inspect the attraction and its safety components; • Failing to monitor and ensure safe operating conditions; • Allowing patrons to use the attraction when it was unsafe; • Failing to warn Plaintiff of the hazardous condition; and • Failing to follow industry safety standards and/or Defendant’s own safety protocols. 17. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence, gross negligence, and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained significant injuries and damages. DAMAGES Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation heretofore pleaded. 18. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from Defendant’s negligence, gross negligence, and/or recklessness. 19. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were a probable consequence of Defendant’s violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff. 20. Defendant should have foreseen and anticipated that a violation of one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care would constitute an appreciable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff. 21. If Defendant had not violated one or more of the above-described independent duties to use ordinary care for the safety of Plaintiff, then Plaintiff’s injuries and damages would not have occurred. 22. As a direct result of said negligence, gross negligence, and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries resulting in the following past and future elements of damage: past and future medical expenses, past and future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental pain, suffering and anguish, physical impairment and disability, loss of income, and loss of quality and enjoyment of life. 23. Additionally, Defendant’s conduct, including knowingly allowing patrons to use an inadequately inflated landing pad, demonstrated reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others and as such, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in excess of $75,000.00, plus costs, interest, and any such other relief as the Court deems appropriate against Defendant in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that Plaintiff has suffered, including punitive damages, if appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, Greg S. Keogh, OBA #33933 PARRISH DEVVAUGHN, PLLC 3601 N. Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 405-444-4444 405-232-0058 (f) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED