Boy Injured on Bouncy Castle - Judgment Overturned
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s ruling that a boy who suffered brain damage after he was kicked in the head while playing on a bouncy castle should be awarded compensation that could have amounted to £1 million.
Sam Harris, who was 11 years old at the time of the accident, had been playing on a bouncy castle set up in a field behind the home of Catherine and Timothy Perry. The Perrys had hired a bouncy castle and a bungee run for their triplets' birthday party. Sam, who was passing with his father, asked Catherine Perry if he could join in.
Whilst on the bouncy castle Sam was kicked in the head by a 15-year-old boy doing a somersault. Sam's skull was fractured and he suffered a very serious and traumatic brain injury. As a result, he now has severe behavioural problems and requires round the clock care.
In May, the High Court found the Perrys liable for damages. In its view, the accident had been caused because they had not provided adequate supervision for the children playing on the bouncy castle and the bungee run. The Court found that there should have been someone there to prevent the older boy from using the bouncy castle at the same time as the younger children and to ensure that dangerous play was prevented. The hire contract for the castle also stipulated that it should be under constant supervision whilst in use. At the time of the accident, Mrs Perry had her back turned away from the castle while attending to a child on the bungee run.
The Perrys appealed against the High Court’s decision, arguing that they had acted no differently from parents up and down the country.
The Court of Appeal judged that Mrs Perry could not be blamed for what was a ‘freak and tragic accident’. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, “The manner in which she was supervising activities on the bouncy castle and the bungee run accorded with the demands of reasonable care for the children using them.” He added, “It is quite impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so.”
The Court judged that Mrs Perry had acted reasonably in thinking that she could supervise both play activities at the same time and the injury sustained by Sam, whilst severe, could not reasonably have been foreseen.
As a result of this ruling, Sam will not receive compensation for his injury. However, it is thought likely that his parents will apply to take his case to the House of Lords, despite the Court of Appeal having refused their request for permission to appeal.
Sam Harris, who was 11 years old at the time of the accident, had been playing on a bouncy castle set up in a field behind the home of Catherine and Timothy Perry. The Perrys had hired a bouncy castle and a bungee run for their triplets' birthday party. Sam, who was passing with his father, asked Catherine Perry if he could join in.
Whilst on the bouncy castle Sam was kicked in the head by a 15-year-old boy doing a somersault. Sam's skull was fractured and he suffered a very serious and traumatic brain injury. As a result, he now has severe behavioural problems and requires round the clock care.
In May, the High Court found the Perrys liable for damages. In its view, the accident had been caused because they had not provided adequate supervision for the children playing on the bouncy castle and the bungee run. The Court found that there should have been someone there to prevent the older boy from using the bouncy castle at the same time as the younger children and to ensure that dangerous play was prevented. The hire contract for the castle also stipulated that it should be under constant supervision whilst in use. At the time of the accident, Mrs Perry had her back turned away from the castle while attending to a child on the bungee run.
The Perrys appealed against the High Court’s decision, arguing that they had acted no differently from parents up and down the country.
The Court of Appeal judged that Mrs Perry could not be blamed for what was a ‘freak and tragic accident’. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, “The manner in which she was supervising activities on the bouncy castle and the bungee run accorded with the demands of reasonable care for the children using them.” He added, “It is quite impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so.”
The Court judged that Mrs Perry had acted reasonably in thinking that she could supervise both play activities at the same time and the injury sustained by Sam, whilst severe, could not reasonably have been foreseen.
As a result of this ruling, Sam will not receive compensation for his injury. However, it is thought likely that his parents will apply to take his case to the House of Lords, despite the Court of Appeal having refused their request for permission to appeal.
-
Divorce is almost never easy and the financial negotiations can be protracted and difficult, particularly when there are business interests involved. In this article we consider some of the issues surrounding divorce for company directors. In the first...
-
Family break-up is always complicated and when there is a property involved, things can get very complex indeed. In principle, when a couple are cohabiting (not married or in a civil partnership) the property belongs as of right to whoever is shown on the...
-
In spite of reforms introduced in 2003, the Child Support Agency (CSA) was heavily criticised for failing to meet its objectives. With nearly £4 billion worth of unpaid child maintenance estimated to be outstanding, clearly something had to be done....
-
The most important requirements for adoption are that the adopter must be over 21 years of age, the child to be adopted must be under the age of 18 and that joint applications to adopt can only be made by married couples and civil partners. Unmarried couples...
-
We often hear of children being taken into care, but the process by which this occurs is not well known. The Children Act 1989 lays down the circumstances under which it is appropriate for a child to be taken into care or a supervision order made. The...
-
More than 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce (in England and Wales more than 125,000 couples divorce annually) and when one in five of all men and women seeking to end their marriage have already been through one divorce, it is perhaps not surprising...
-
One of the most common myths in English law is that there is such a thing as a ‘common law marriage’. It simply doesn’t exist and this misapprehension has led the Law Commission to suggest proposals giving additional rights to cohabiting...
-
Approximately one in six marriages in the European Union is between persons of different nationalities. Not surprisingly, approximately one in six divorces also involves spouses of different nationalities. This can make for some complexity on divorce as to...
-
Arrangements over the custody of children (called residence arrangements by lawyers) after the breakdown of a relationship are usually best decided without the intervention of the court. Unfortunately, it is not always possible for the two parties to...
-
The most important requirements for adoption are that the adopter must be over 21 years of age, the child to be adopted must be under the age of 18 and that joint applications to adopt can only be made by married couples and civil partners. Unmarried couples...
-
Although divorce is a commonplace occurrence these days, few people going into their first divorce have much idea about how the process operates. Here is a brief guide. The process for dissolution of a civil partnership is essentially the same, as are the...
-
When you begin living together as a couple, without being married, it is best practice to set up a trust deed to make clear your joint wishes and intentions concerning ownership of the house you live in. Preferably, this should be in association with a...
-
The headline-grabbing decisions in a spate of ‘rich list’ divorce cases in 2007 confirmed that the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) is emphasising that marriage is a partnership and that the relative contributions of...
-
The first Civil Partnerships were formed on 21 December 2005, after the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 came into effect on 5 December 2005. Same-sex marriages contracted abroad, however, have been recognised as valid civil partnerships from 5 December...
-
Under the Housing Act a spouse or civil partner has the right to succeed, in most circumstances, to an assured tenancy where he or she was cohabiting with the deceased immediately before the death. Whilst that is all reasonably clear, the...
-
When it comes to dealing with money and divorce, it is important to know what has to be taken into account and the powers available to arrive at fair decisions. For most couples, the basic problem is how to finance two separate households from income and...
-
Divorce is seldom an easy business, but the problems are compounded when there is a family business involved. The division of the spoils has traditionally been the subject of a great deal of argument, but recent cases have at least clarified the thinking of...
-
The 1989 Children Act aimed to clarify the law regarding who could look after children. One of the main new concepts introduced by the Act was that of ‘Parental Responsibility’ (PR). This is the legal term which emphasises that the duty to...
-
Following a recent decision in the Court of Appeal, in which a pre-nuptial agreement entered into by a German heiress and her husband was held to be enforceable, wealthy families worried about preserving family assets in the event of a divorce should...
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
