A primary school teacher has filed a lawsuit against the outdoor adventure company Go Ape, seeking £60,000 in damages after a playground slide accident left her with a shattered leg.

Rosemary Mountain, aged 50, experienced a severe leg fracture while descending a 10 to 12-meter-long ‘Big Bounce’ netted fabric tube slide at Go Ape’s Black Park adventure location near Slough in February 2019.

Her leg was broken in three places when her shoe got caught, leaving it ‘floppy’ and bent at a 45-degree angle following the incident in the Nets Kingdom area of the site.

Mrs. Mountain, who teaches Year 1 and Year 2 students, is pursuing legal action against Adventure Forest Ltd, the operator of Go Ape, claiming the slide was ‘too dangerous’ and ‘not reasonably safe for operation.’ The slide was later replaced after the accident.

The Central London County Court was informed that the section containing the slide was intended for children aged three to 12.

However, Go Ape has refuted all allegations of negligence, asserting that the Nets Kingdom was ‘installed by industry specialists’ and underwent regular safety inspections to identify potential risks.

Lawyers for the company also say that Mrs Mountain signed a disclaimer accepting that she was at risk of injury before she went into the Nets Kingdom.

The court heard that Mrs Mountain was on a half term visit to the Black Park Go Ape with her husband and her young children when the accident happened.

Rosemary Mountain, 50, suffered a ‘severe’ fracture and is suing Go Ape for £60,000

The incident occurred on a 10 to 12m long ‘Big Bounce’ netted fabric tube slide at Go Ape’s Black Park adventure site near Slough in February 2019

She told the court they had decided to leave the area and go home, using the slide as the most convenient exit, with her husband and kids going first.

‘I went down with my legs together,’ she told Judge Luke Ashby.

‘It was very fast and the first part is just a freefall. My foot just got snagged in some sort of material at the side of the slide and dragged behind me. I came to a rest and it was twisted right round.’

Mrs Mountain described how her leg ‘broke horribly’, adding: ‘My foot and leg were dragged underneath me as I fell and I knew I had badly broken my leg because I could feel intense pain and see that half of my shin was bent at about 45 degrees.

‘I could see that it was broken because it was in a flexible curve round behind me. It was just wobbly. When I came to a rest, I just thought “my kids can’t see my leg like this”.’

After the horrific break, she had to be cut out of the netting at the bottom of the slide before being taken to hospital.

Mrs Mountain  told the court she had previously been an ‘outdoorsy adventurous person,’ but after the leg break had to undergo extensive surgery, remains plagued by chronic pain and is unlikely to ever return to running or her previous ‘active lifestyle’.

David White, barrister for Go Ape, said Mrs Mountain had signed a disclaimer before entering the course, telling her: ‘As with any physical activity, there is a degree of risk…this was an activity which involved the risk of suffering injury and you knew that when you agreed to do it.’

The court heard that Mrs Mountain (pictured) was on a half term visit to the Black Park Go Ape with her husband and her young children when the accident happened

She replied: ‘I’ve seen Go Ape a lot of times before. We signed to say there’s a risk of bumps and scrapes, but not this sort of injury.

‘It says on the description that it’s suitable for three-year-olds, so I didn’t expect to break my leg in the way that I did.

‘I know it says it’s risky, but it didn’t look risky and it said it was for young children.’

Mrs Mountain added that she had been down the slide once already before her accident.

‘It wasn’t slippy, it was unpleasant. You had to crawl out of the bottom, you didn’t slide out. I feel the slide was not a safe design. I felt it was a very strange slide.

‘I just thought here’s a fun activity for my children to do at half term. But looking back afterwards, it just didn’t feel like it was safe.’

Dave Daborn, co-owner of Go Ape and site manager at the time, confirmed Mrs Mountain’s barrister’s assertion that ‘this was an area which was aimed at children.’

‘Our target market was under-12s, but older children and adults were welcome,’ he said.

Presenting her case, Mrs Mountain’s barrister Jonathan Payne argued that the type of extreme injury she suffered should not have occurred ‘on a slide which was reasonably safe for operation’.

‘If the claimant is doing as she has been instructed and despite this she suffers an entrapment injury which breaks her leg in three places, the piece of equipment is not reasonably safe for operation,’ he said.

He added that, looking at accident reports relating to the slide, there was a common theme of ‘trapping and twisting lower limbs,’ making the accident Mrs Mountain suffered foreseeable.

Mr Payne also asserted that Go Ape had failed to carry out a specific risk assessment of the section of slide where Mrs Mountain suffered her injury.

He continued: ‘Even if the piece of equipment is reasonably safe for most users, if the injury foreseeable is for serious injury – which it was – and the cost of modification is comparatively low, then she should not have been exposed to that risk of injury.

‘The accident statistics showed there was a propensity for users to trap their lower limbs – however this was caused.

‘In those circumstances, there was a foreseeable risk of serious injury, which was evidenced by this accident in February 2019.’

Go Ape later removed the net slide and substituted a rigid one in its place.

However, in denying fault, it insists its engineers had in fact carried out a ‘specific risk assessment’ and that there was nothing inherently hazardous about the slide.

Go Ape barrister, Mr White, described what happened to Mrs Mountain ‘an extremely unfortunate accident,’ but said her evidence about the sequence of what happened was unclear.

The safety briefing handed out to her was clear and comprehensive, he told the court, and her core complaint seemed to focus on the overall safety of the slide where she was injured, he argued.

‘In reality therefore, the only allegations remaining are generic ones about the overall safety of the slide – or one about the slide being too high or steep,’ he told the court.

‘Her case is thus, in essence, that the slide was simply too dangerous per se, owing to its height/angle, such that it simply should not have been there at all.

He added that this claim was ‘not reasonably sustainable’.

The hearing continues.