Bouncy castle payout threatens parties - Telegraph

Bouncy castle payout threatens parties
By Caroline Gammell

A couple who hired a bouncy castle for a birthday party have been held responsible for an accident that left a boy with brain damage.
The ruling could open the floodgates for similar claims.

Timothy and Catherine Perry face a £1 million payout after a High Court judge accused them of "shortfalls in supervision", leading to the accident that left Sam Harris, now 13, with a fractured skull.

Although the couple were insured, legal experts said that the ruling may pave the way for a host of complaints from parents over less serious incidents in which children come to harm while being cared for by others.

Ian Caplin, a lawyer, said: "The concern is that at a children's party where one child whacks another one over the head with a lollipop and causes mild scarring, a
parent will want to take legal action.

"This particular case is very serious, but people might consider litigation when they never would before because it gets into the popular mindset."

Sam Harris was 11 when he asked Mrs Perry for permission to play on the bouncy castle she and her husband had hired for their triplets' 10th birthday in Rochester, Kent, in September 2005.

When Mrs Perry, from Rochester, had her back turned, Sammy Pring, 15, accidentally kicked Sam in the head while turning a somersault, causing "serious and traumatic brain injury".

Judge Mr Justice David Steel ruled that Mr and Mrs Perry should compensate the seriously brain-damaged boy.

"Sammy Pring should not have been allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time as the younger and smaller children," he told the High Court in London.

"The risks of a damaging collision are manifestly enhanced by mixing children of different sizes on a bouncy castle.

"I find that the shortfall in supervision was causative of the accident."

The judge said that although Mrs Perry was present throughout, her attention was diverted.

The case against the Perrys was brought on behalf of Sam by his parents, Janet and David Harris, who are separated.

Mr Harris was counter-sued by the Perrys, who said the council worker was responsible because he was with his son and should have been looking after him, a claim dismissed by the judge.

Speaking after their victory, Mr and Mrs Harris said the ruling would enable them to arrange the specialist support and treatment Sam needed.

"We appreciate that thousands of children enjoy playing on bouncy castles every year and we would not wish to stop that happening," they said.

"But it is vital that those hiring them supervise them properly if accidents like Sam's are to be avoided."

The judge gave the Perrys permission to appeal because of the ruling's "potential significance".

He said that if the appeal were not pursued, Sam should receive an interim payment of £100,000. A source close to the Perrys said that they did not want to appeal.

Kim Daniels, a lawyer who specialises in personal injury cases, said the ruling might "make people think twice before they organise parties and that might be a shame.

"It is alarming that you do your best for your visitors and find yourself liable."

do you agree with the outcome of the case?

Out of order, imagine how the other kid must feel hurting his friend like that to make the parents liable is ridiculous.

American styled stuff.

.....lol.....

The article will probably do bad for the bouncy castle industry in the U.K if they're not careful.

I agree with the payment if you think a bit more about the case.

When the parents decided to sue, im sure at no stage did they believe their payout would come directly from the accused parents themselves. It was always about getting the £1 million pounds from the other party's insurance company. From that perpesctive i would have done the same thing all day long and would have no objection to being sued under those circumstances if i knew my insurers would pay out.

The injured kid is completely helpless, nervous system totally mash up and will need BIG money to look after him for the rest of his life. Im sure 99% of people would do the same under those circumstances.

I have used bouncy castles at practically all of my childrens parties and have attended parties dozens of times where they have been in use.

And one rule most mothers learn pretty early on is that you don't allow big kids on with little ones. Evem when attending parties where the host hasn't observed this 'rule' than you can count on it that some parent will eventually take charge to make sure that time on the bouncy is divided, more often between size, but also ages.

Although I disagree with the whole 'seeking damages' aspect of this case. I do believe the adults concerned failed to provide adequate safety for the children in their care by allowing older and more boistrous children on at the same time as younger children, wether or not they were looking.

I imagine they'd all had a drink to many.