Parents face £1m claim after boy is injured on their bouncy castle
Jan Colley
A teenager who was brain damaged when he was kicked in the head on a bouncy castle yesterday won a damages action against the couple who hired it for their children's birthday party.
Sam Harris, then 11, was hurt when a much taller and heavier 15-year-old, Sammy Pring, caught the left side of his head with a heel while they were somersaulting on the castle in September 2005.
He suffered a skull fracture resulting in a "very serious and traumatic brain injury" and now needs round-the-clock supervision, said his counsel, Susan Rodway, QC.
The amount of damages, which are likely to exceed £1m, will be assessed at a later stage if not agreed.
Sam, who brought the case through his mother, Janet, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, claimed that Catherine
and Timothy Perry, who
hired the castle for their triplets' 10th birthday party, were to blame for the accident, which happened on the playing fields behind their home in Rochester, Kent.
However, the Perrys denied liability and blamed Sam's father, David, who was brought into the proceedings as a third party and third defendant on the basis of his alleged lack of supervision.
Mr Justice David Steel, at London's High Court, ruled the Perrys, who were insured, were liable and dismissed the claim against Mr Harris.
He said he found it probable that Mrs Perry did give Sam permission to use the castle, but that the level of supervision was inadequate.
The accident was caused by the shortfall in supervision - because no-one was in a position to intervene to stop the somersaulting - and by an older boy being allowed to use the castle at the same time
as the younger and smaller children.
The judge gave the Perrys permission to appeal because of the ruling's "potential
significance", not just to the couple, but also to those who operate inflatable equipment.
He said that if the appeal was not pursued, Sam should receive an interim payment of £100,000.
After the hearing, Mr and Mrs Harris said: "We are both very relieved the court has found Mr and Mrs Perry were negligent as this will now enable us to obtain the specialist support and treatment that Sam needs.
"Whilst we never wanted the case to conclude at
trial, we are pleased this has provided an opportunity
to highlight just how dangerous bouncy castles can be
if they are not supervised properly.
"We appreciate that thousands of children enjoy playing on bouncy castles every year and we would not wish to
stop that happening but it is vital that those hiring them supervise them properly if accidents like Sam's are to be avoided."
Miss Rodway told the judge that constant supervision was required under the terms of the bouncy castle's hire
contract, and as a matter of common sense, but it was undisputed that Mrs Perry had her back to it at the time of the accident while strapping a child into another inflatable - a bungee run.
The case on behalf of Sam, now 13, was that his father, who was tidying up after a football session, said he could not use the castle, as it was a private party, but he was given permission by Mrs Perry.
Mrs Perry who, together with her husband, was not in court yesterday, said that she turned away from the bungee run and saw Sam running in her direction. Although he did not ask, she told him not to go on the bouncy castle.
In his ruling, the judge said the difficulty was that Mrs Perry had to supervise the use of two pieces of equipment at the same time - both needing uninterrupted supervision.
The standard of supervision needed to be all the greater, given that the users were not of an age to appreciate the
significant risks involved.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Big Boy Did It, And Ran Away on 1:14am Fri 9 May 08
Terrible tragedy for the wee boy and his family.
But it was an unfortunate accident.
Litigation gone mad.
Terrible tragedy for the wee boy and his family.
But it was an unfortunate accident.
Litigation gone mad.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:25am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Big Boy Did It[/bold] wrote:
Terrible tragedy for the wee boy and his family.
But it was an unfortunate accident.
Litigation gone mad.[/quote]
aye, terrible accident, litigation out of desperation is a sad thing for all involved.
Big Boy Did It wrote:
Terrible tragedy for the wee boy and his family.
But it was an unfortunate accident.
Litigation gone mad.
aye, terrible accident, litigation out of desperation is a sad thing for all involved.
Posted by: gordon Brown ate my hamster, Australia on 3:44am Fri 9 May 08
The blame society in action.
when i was a laddie is was pushed out a tree, hit in the head with a tin of paint and stones and almost took a guys eye out with an airgun.
all accidents and all would be worth a fortune now.
The blame society in action.
when i was a laddie is was pushed out a tree, hit in the head with a tin of paint and stones and almost took a guys eye out with an airgun.
all accidents and all would be worth a fortune now.
Posted by: Mister Campbell, jedburgh on 6:04am Fri 9 May 08
However, the couple who hired the castle were insured and the kid needs expensive assistance and treatment for the rest of his life, so litigation may have been the only option open to them.
However, the couple who hired the castle were insured and the kid needs expensive assistance and treatment for the rest of his life, so litigation may have been the only option open to them.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshire on 6:34am Fri 9 May 08
America here we come!
Ban The Bouncy Castle I say.
Ban birthday parties coz you never know. A wean could eat jelly and ice cream, be sick, and another wean slips on it, falls and dauds their heid and you will get sued.
America here we come!
Ban The Bouncy Castle I say.
Ban birthday parties coz you never know. A wean could eat jelly and ice cream, be sick, and another wean slips on it, falls and dauds their heid and you will get sued.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshire on 6:35am Fri 9 May 08
I am not belittleing the situation of the poor wee soul that got hurt.
I am trying to show how far we have gone. Sad eh, ah well that's progress.
I am not belittleing the situation of the poor wee soul that got hurt.
I am trying to show how far we have gone. Sad eh, ah well that's progress.
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 8:28am Fri 9 May 08
I think the judge called the shots wrong. This was an accident with tragic consequences. Even if the wee boy gets his million, the lawyers on all sides will probably get 2 or 3 million.
Perhaps an independent Scotland should look at establishing some form of "no blame" compensation scheme, professionally mediated?
This decision will do nothing to build the resilience and independence of the next generation.
Unsupervised play is a good thing for youngsters. We are just too "risk-averse", terrified to allow children out of our sight.
Slainte Mhor
I think the judge called the shots wrong. This was an accident with tragic consequences. Even if the wee boy gets his million, the lawyers on all sides will probably get 2 or 3 million.
Perhaps an independent Scotland should look at establishing some form of "no blame" compensation scheme, professionally mediated?
This decision will do nothing to build the resilience and independence of the next generation.
Unsupervised play is a good thing for youngsters. We are just too "risk-averse", terrified to allow children out of our sight.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: Tony88, Glasgow on 8:51am Fri 9 May 08
Where is it all going to end? Children today are mollycoddled and have forgotten what 'play' is all about. We played football for hours on end, climbed trees, jumped from midden to midden, did balancing acts along railings etc, etc. Yes, people would be apoplectic if they seen youngsters today doing any of this but obesity was something unheard of in those days.
We are also in a 'blame culture'. Someone else is always to blame when things go wrong. The legal profession is standing on the sidelines actively encoutaging this state of affairs. Wads of money!!!
Where is it all going to end? Children today are mollycoddled and have forgotten what 'play' is all about. We played football for hours on end, climbed trees, jumped from midden to midden, did balancing acts along railings etc, etc. Yes, people would be apoplectic if they seen youngsters today doing any of this but obesity was something unheard of in those days.
We are also in a 'blame culture'. Someone else is always to blame when things go wrong. The legal profession is standing on the sidelines actively encoutaging this state of affairs. Wads of money!!!
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:59am Fri 9 May 08
It's a mad, mad, mad, world! It's the kids that I feel sorry for as it means that parents are now going to be even more protective towards them and they'll be even less prepared for what life will throw at them in the future.
It's a mad, mad, mad, world! It's the kids that I feel sorry for as it means that parents are now going to be even more protective towards them and they'll be even less prepared for what life will throw at them in the future.
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 9:09am Fri 9 May 08
We can now say farewell to the bouncy castles followed by a ban on childrens parties.. Sad case but litigation gone mad as this was just a tragic accident. I often wonder how I managed to survive childhood and early years (as must many in the same "advanced" age group as myself!)
We can now say farewell to the bouncy castles followed by a ban on childrens parties.. Sad case but litigation gone mad as this was just a tragic accident. I often wonder how I managed to survive childhood and early years (as must many in the same "advanced" age group as myself!)
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 9:24am Fri 9 May 08
shame for the wee laddie, but banning bouncing castles is a bit ridiculous.
It was a freak accident.
When my niece had a bouncy castle in her garden, there were kids and drunken adults all bouncing on the bloody thing.
Like I said, devestating for the family, but occassionally freak accidents happen.
People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
shame for the wee laddie, but banning bouncing castles is a bit ridiculous.
It was a freak accident.
When my niece had a bouncy castle in her garden, there were kids and drunken adults all bouncing on the bloody thing.
Like I said, devestating for the family, but occassionally freak accidents happen.
People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
Posted by: Big Boy Did It, And Ran Away on 9:47am Fri 9 May 08
Spagan, a good friend of mine worked in NZ for a year. They have a "no blame compensation" policy there, which I believe works quite well.
Spagan, a good friend of mine worked in NZ for a year. They have a "no blame compensation" policy there, which I believe works quite well.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Edinburgh on 10:00am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Rab Jones[/bold] wrote:
shame for the wee laddie, but banning bouncing castles is a bit ridiculous.
It was a freak accident.
When my niece had a bouncy castle in her garden, there were kids and drunken adults all bouncing on the bloody thing.
Like I said, devestating for the family, but occassionally freak accidents happen.
People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
[/quote] It wasn't a freak accident. It was a stupid and preventable accident, which wouldn't have happened if the adults in charge of the bouncy castle had exercised sensible supervision.
Rab Jones wrote:
shame for the wee laddie, but banning bouncing castles is a bit ridiculous.
It was a freak accident.
When my niece had a bouncy castle in her garden, there were kids and drunken adults all bouncing on the bloody thing.
Like I said, devestating for the family, but occassionally freak accidents happen.
People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
It wasn't a freak accident. It was a stupid and preventable accident, which wouldn't have happened if the adults in charge of the bouncy castle had exercised sensible supervision.
Posted by: calum, Glasgow on 10:33am Fri 9 May 08
Rab Jones: [quote]People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
[/quote]
I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles.
Rab Jones:
People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 10:34am Fri 9 May 08
Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place!
Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!!
Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place!
Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!!
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 10:36am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]calum[/bold] wrote:
Rab Jones: [quote]People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports. [/quote] I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles. [/quote] I would, but only because it is almost impossible to get kids off them to end the party - and let the adults on for a shot!
calum wrote:
Rab Jones: People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles.
I would, but only because it is almost impossible to get kids off them to end the party - and let the adults on for a shot!
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 11:30am Fri 9 May 08
Don't you think it's strange that Neo Labour formed the Ministry of Justice in 2007? It sounds like something from George Orwell's 1984. Furthermore, the Nazis had their Reich Ministry of Justice during the war.
Funny how a socialist like Herr Brown calls for Britishness etc. Surely this makes him a national socialist (Nazi)!
Don't you think it's strange that Neo Labour formed the Ministry of Justice in 2007? It sounds like something from George Orwell's 1984. Furthermore, the Nazis had their Reich Ministry of Justice during the war.
Funny how a socialist like Herr Brown calls for Britishness etc. Surely this makes him a national socialist (Nazi)!
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 12:05pm Fri 9 May 08
Boy who ran away
Hope that Kenny our Justice Secretary goes over for a look at New Zealand's system. Small country - independent - pragmatic common sense.
Don't hear many of them wanting to be ruled from their close, bigger neighbour. There are probably no dependency parties in NZ.
Slainte Mhor
Boy who ran away
Hope that Kenny our Justice Secretary goes over for a look at New Zealand's system. Small country - independent - pragmatic common sense.
Don't hear many of them wanting to be ruled from their close, bigger neighbour. There are probably no dependency parties in NZ.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: Paul, Castle Douglas on 12:48pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]calum[/bold] wrote:
Rab Jones: [quote]People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports. [/quote] I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles. [/quote] Well, people are trying to ban them. It's been on the radio too, and I heard it.
calum wrote:
Rab Jones: People die (very rarely) in Boxing and Rugby, I don't hear anyone trying to ban these sports.
I don't hear anyone trying to ban bouncy castles.
Well, people are trying to ban them. It's been on the radio too, and I heard it.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Edinburgh on 1:49pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote:
Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place!
Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!![/quote] The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.
Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?
Smeeagain wrote:
Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place!
Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!!
The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.
Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 1:57pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Ian Johnston[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote: Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place! Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!![/quote] The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children. Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?[/quote] [bold]The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.[/bold]
And if you read the article it suggests that Mrs Perry told the younger boy not to go on the bouncy castle! You are just another one of these tight aresed people who are so blasted self righteous and sanctimonious after the event. It was not the party that caused the brain damage - it was an accident that could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight.
Go and patronise someone else you pathetic creature.
Ian Johnston wrote:
Smeeagain wrote: Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place! Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!!
The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children. Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?
The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.
And if you read the article it suggests that Mrs Perry told the younger boy not to go on the bouncy castle! You are just another one of these tight aresed people who are so blasted self righteous and sanctimonious after the event. It was not the party that caused the brain damage - it was an accident that could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight.
Go and patronise someone else you pathetic creature.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 2:50pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ian Johnston[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Smeeagain[/bold] wrote: Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place! Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!![/quote] The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children. Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?[/quote] [bold]The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.[/bold]
And if you read the article it suggests that Mrs Perry told the younger boy not to go on the bouncy castle! You are just another one of these tight aresed people who are so blasted self righteous and sanctimonious after the event. It was not the party that caused the brain damage - it was an accident that could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight.
Go and patronise someone else you pathetic creature.[/quote] Did you read the article yourself? First of all you claimed that the 15 year old (Sammy) shouldn't have been on the thing, now you claim that the 11 year old (Sam) shouldn't.
Mrs Perry [italic]claimed[/italic] she told the younger child not to use the castle, but ...
[quote][The judge] said he found it probable that Mrs Perry did give Sam permission to use the castle, but that the level of supervision was inadequate.[/quote]
I cannot see where you get this [italic]"could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight"[/italic] business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?
Earlier this year a charitable group on the board of which I sit considered hiring a bouncy castle for a public anniversary event. We went into it carefully, and decided that the high cost of insurance and the need for constant adult supervision made it not worthwhile. So we didn't.
Anyone who fails to think through the implication of big heavy and small vulnerable people bouncing around together is an idiot.
Smeeagain wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote:
Smeeagain wrote: Why sue the parents who hired the flaming thing? Why not sue the parents of the 15 year old who shouldn't have been on the f'n thing in the first place! Ian Johnstone clearly has fab children's parties!!!!!!
The point is not that the 15 year old shouldn't have been on the thing. The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children. Does a party which results in serious brain damage to a child count as 'fab'?
The point is that he shouldn't have been on it - or being hyper acrobatic on it - at the same time as smaller and vulnerable children.
And if you read the article it suggests that Mrs Perry told the younger boy not to go on the bouncy castle! You are just another one of these tight aresed people who are so blasted self righteous and sanctimonious after the event. It was not the party that caused the brain damage - it was an accident that could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight.
Go and patronise someone else you pathetic creature.
Did you read the article yourself? First of all you claimed that the 15 year old (Sammy) shouldn't have been on the thing, now you claim that the 11 year old (Sam) shouldn't.
Mrs Perry
claimed she told the younger child not to use the castle, but ...
said he found it probable that Mrs Perry did give Sam permission to use the castle, but that the level of supervision was inadequate.
I cannot see where you get this
"could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight" business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?
Earlier this year a charitable group on the board of which I sit considered hiring a bouncy castle for a public anniversary event. We went into it carefully, and decided that the high cost of insurance and the need for constant adult supervision made it not worthwhile. So we didn't.
Anyone who fails to think through the implication of big heavy and small vulnerable people bouncing around together is an idiot.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 3:04pm Fri 9 May 08
The Harrises are quoted as saying they didn't want their claim to end in a trial which suggests - to me - that they made a claim against the Perrys and the Perrys didn't agree that they were liable. Given that the Harris' boy is going to need some expensive and extended help to cope with his injury, why should the Harrises not pursue their claim through law?
This does not come under the heading of a 'society gone mad'. Members of 'society' in Britain have been suing one-another since the dark ages. The difference is that, once upon a time, only those and such-as-those had access to the funds necessary tp pursue a claim. Now that route is open to millions. Would anyone argue this - in itself - is a bad thing?
The Harrises are quoted as saying they didn't want their claim to end in a trial which suggests - to me - that they made a claim against the Perrys and the Perrys didn't agree that they were liable. Given that the Harris' boy is going to need some expensive and extended help to cope with his injury, why should the Harrises not pursue their claim through law?
This does not come under the heading of a 'society gone mad'. Members of 'society' in Britain have been suing one-another since the dark ages. The difference is that, once upon a time, only those and such-as-those had access to the funds necessary tp pursue a claim. Now that route is open to millions. Would anyone argue this - in itself - is a bad thing?
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 3:14pm Fri 9 May 08
Iain in Castle D:
[quote][italic]I cannot see where you get this "could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight" business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?[/italic][/quote]
Hindsight is great. Even if the children had been supervised, an accident could happen at any time. Suggesting 2 year olds and teens on the same bouncy castle? Well possibly, if they are assisting the 2 year olds to bounce? What if it was dad - and he fell over on a toddler?
In school rugby (or even football, hockey, basketball etc) - in first and/or second year, there can be tremendous disparity in size and weight of pupils - a range of 100kg to 200kg would not be uncommon.
What do we do? Probably make sure that no human comes within a metre of another human - JUST IN CASE?????
Slainte Mhor
Iain in Castle D:
I cannot see where you get this "could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight" business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?
Hindsight is great. Even if the children had been supervised, an accident could happen at any time. Suggesting 2 year olds and teens on the same bouncy castle? Well possibly, if they are assisting the 2 year olds to bounce? What if it was dad - and he fell over on a toddler?
In school rugby (or even football, hockey, basketball etc) - in first and/or second year, there can be tremendous disparity in size and weight of pupils - a range of 100kg to 200kg would not be uncommon.
What do we do? Probably make sure that no human comes within a metre of another human - JUST IN CASE?????
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 3:40pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]spagan[/bold] wrote:
Iain in Castle D:
[quote][italic]I cannot see where you get this "could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight" business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?[/italic][/quote]
Hindsight is great. Even if the children had been supervised, an accident could happen at any time. Suggesting 2 year olds and teens on the same bouncy castle? Well possibly, if they are assisting the 2 year olds to bounce? What if it was dad - and he fell over on a toddler?
In school rugby (or even football, hockey, basketball etc) - in first and/or second year, there can be tremendous disparity in size and weight of pupils - a range of 100kg to 200kg would not be uncommon.
What do we do? Probably make sure that no human comes within a metre of another human - JUST IN CASE?????
Slainte Mhor[/quote] Of course an accident could happen - but it's much less likely if a responsible adult is there to say "Go easy, son, there are some wee children around you" or "Wait a bit till those big lads have finished their shot".
Like swimming pools and fires, bouncy castles need supervision when there are children around.
spagan wrote:
Iain in Castle D:
I cannot see where you get this "could have happened at any time to any child using a bouncy castle with others, regardless of their age, size weight" business from. The accident was caused by a large, heavy child colliding with a small, light child. Would you think it appropriate to allow energetic teenagers and two year olds to use a bouncy castle together, unsupervised, at a party?
Hindsight is great. Even if the children had been supervised, an accident could happen at any time. Suggesting 2 year olds and teens on the same bouncy castle? Well possibly, if they are assisting the 2 year olds to bounce? What if it was dad - and he fell over on a toddler?
In school rugby (or even football, hockey, basketball etc) - in first and/or second year, there can be tremendous disparity in size and weight of pupils - a range of 100kg to 200kg would not be uncommon.
What do we do? Probably make sure that no human comes within a metre of another human - JUST IN CASE?????
Slainte Mhor
Of course an accident could happen - but it's much less likely if a responsible adult is there to say "Go easy, son, there are some wee children around you" or "Wait a bit till those big lads have finished their shot".
Like swimming pools and fires, bouncy castles need supervision when there are children around.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 3:44pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]JBlackley[/bold] wrote:
The Harrises are quoted as saying they didn't want their claim to end in a trial which suggests - to me - that they made a claim against the Perrys and the Perrys didn't agree that they were liable. Given that the Harris' boy is going to need some expensive and extended help to cope with his injury, why should the Harrises not pursue their claim through law?
This does not come under the heading of a 'society gone mad'. Members of 'society' in Britain have been suing one-another since the dark ages. The difference is that, once upon a time, only those and such-as-those had access to the funds necessary tp pursue a claim. Now that route is open to millions. Would anyone argue this - in itself - is a bad thing?[/quote] Very often insurers will not pay out in such cases unless there has been a court ruling. Presumably they think they'll save more in reduced numbers of cases than they'll lose in legal fees. I doubt if the Perrys had any say at all in how this progressed.
I'm with you on the not-madness. This was a case of parents who expected people who organised a risky activity for their son to exercise a reasonable amount of care in running and supervising that activity.
JBlackley wrote:
The Harrises are quoted as saying they didn't want their claim to end in a trial which suggests - to me - that they made a claim against the Perrys and the Perrys didn't agree that they were liable. Given that the Harris' boy is going to need some expensive and extended help to cope with his injury, why should the Harrises not pursue their claim through law?
This does not come under the heading of a 'society gone mad'. Members of 'society' in Britain have been suing one-another since the dark ages. The difference is that, once upon a time, only those and such-as-those had access to the funds necessary tp pursue a claim. Now that route is open to millions. Would anyone argue this - in itself - is a bad thing?
Very often insurers will not pay out in such cases unless there has been a court ruling. Presumably they think they'll save more in reduced numbers of cases than they'll lose in legal fees. I doubt if the Perrys had any say at all in how this progressed.
I'm with you on the not-madness. This was a case of parents who expected people who organised a risky activity for their son to exercise a reasonable amount of care in running and supervising that activity.
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 3:53pm Fri 9 May 08
Stupid parents. They should take responsibility for their own children.
The parents of the 15-year-old should sue for distress and violation of their human rights. It always works for feral youths who attack innocent people and damage property.
Stupid parents. They should take responsibility for their own children.
The parents of the 15-year-old should sue for distress and violation of their human rights. It always works for feral youths who attack innocent people and damage property.
Posted by: tommyatkins, Edinburgh on 6:32pm Fri 9 May 08
And why did the parent of the injured child not supervise him?
They left the other parents as being 'in loco parentis'.
And why did the parent of the injured child not supervise him?
They left the other parents as being 'in loco parentis'.
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 7:40pm Fri 9 May 08
Vurry sad that they had to sue in order to give their son the correct care. Cannot see now many persons wishing to hire this sort of play equipment. Nor many sensible parents to allow a child on a mixed age inflatable.
Vurry sad that they had to sue in order to give their son the correct care. Cannot see now many persons wishing to hire this sort of play equipment. Nor many sensible parents to allow a child on a mixed age inflatable.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 7:44pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]tommyatkins[/bold] wrote:
And why did the parent of the injured child not supervise him?
They left the other parents as being 'in loco parentis'.[/quote] The judge seems to have thought that it was reasonable for them to do so, in the circumstances.
tommyatkins wrote:
And why did the parent of the injured child not supervise him?
They left the other parents as being 'in loco parentis'.
The judge seems to have thought that it was reasonable for them to do so, in the circumstances.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 5:19pm Sat 10 May 08
Ian Johnstone wrote:
[[italic]quote]Earlier this year a charitable group on the board of which I sit considered hiring a bouncy castle for a public anniversary event. We went into it carefully, and decided that the high cost of insurance and the need for constant adult supervision made it not worthwhile. So we didn't.[/quote][/italic]
In other words the decision was based on the cost of making sure there was adequate supervision and insurance cover - not an overriding concern that a child might be injured through an unfortunate accident! Health and safety gone mad! If every activity that could be undertaken by children was subject to detailed risk assessment - or cost estimate in your charitable organisations case - they wouldn't be allowed to do anything that wasn't on a one-to-one supervised basis.
as is the case with local authorities who now insist that children under 8 are supervised on tone-to-one basis in swimming pools the policy is based not on thepotential for accidents to occur but on the risk of potential litigation.
I am saddened dreadfully by the injury to the boy in this case but if the consequence is that parents deny children the joy of having friends to play for fear of litigation then there is another tragedy brewing.
Ian Johnstone wrote:
Earlier this year a charitable group on the board of which I sit considered hiring a bouncy castle for a public anniversary event. We went into it carefully, and decided that the high cost of insurance and the need for constant adult supervision made it not worthwhile. So we didn't.
In other words the decision was based on the cost of making sure there was adequate supervision and insurance cover - not an overriding concern that a child might be injured through an unfortunate accident! Health and safety gone mad! If every activity that could be undertaken by children was subject to detailed risk assessment - or cost estimate in your charitable organisations case - they wouldn't be allowed to do anything that wasn't on a one-to-one supervised basis.
as is the case with local authorities who now insist that children under 8 are supervised on tone-to-one basis in swimming pools the policy is based not on thepotential for accidents to occur but on the risk of potential litigation.
I am saddened dreadfully by the injury to the boy in this case but if the consequence is that parents deny children the joy of having friends to play for fear of litigation then there is another tragedy brewing.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (31)
