Alexi Mostrous
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
Parents who hire bouncy castles for a child and his or her friends could be liable for damages for any injuries suffered by the children after a landmark High Court ruling yesterday.
A teenager who was brain-damaged when he was kicked in the head on a bouncy castle won a damages action yesterday against the couple who hired it for their child’s birthday party. The High Court ruling paves the way for further claims against parents and companies who fail to supervise children playing on inflatable toys.
Sam Harris, then 11, was hurt when a much taller and heavier 15-year-old fell on him as they were somersaulting on the castle in September 2006.
He fractured his skull, causing “serious and traumatic brain injury”. Sam, who has Asberger’s syndrome, now needs round-the-clock care, his solicitor said. She added that the amount of damages, which will be assessed at a later trial, was likely “easily” to exceed £1 million.
Sam brought the case through his mother, Janet Harris, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, against Catherine and Timothy Perry, who hired the castle for their triplets’ tenth birthday party. He had climbed on to the inflatable after leaving his father, who was playing football with him in an adjoining field, after asking Mrs Perry’s permission.
He and a friend started doing somersaults, prompting the older boy, who was described in court as a “gentle giant” and an “enormously tall boy”, to try the same. As he did so, his heel struck Sam hard on the forehead.
The Perrys denied liability and blamed Sam’s father, David, who was joined as a third defendant and accused of failing to supervise his son. Mr Justice David Steel ruled that the Perrys, who were insured, were liable and dismissed the case against Mr Harris.
He found that Mrs Perry had given Sam permission to use the castle and had failed to watch him properly.
At the time of the accident, she had been strapping another child into a second inflatable, a bungee run, and had her back to the castle, the judge found. “Both pieces of equipment needed uninterrupted supervision,” he said.
Mr Justice Steel said that Mrs Perry should have been there to stop the boys as soon as one of them “tried a flip”. He added that Mrs Perry had also failed negligently to ensure that all the boys on the castle were of the same size.
Instructions provided with the castle had warned the Perrys not to allow “somersaults and rough play” and not to “mix children of different sizes”.
The judge said that the allegation by the Perrys that Sam’s Asperger’s syndrome meant that he needed greater supervision was withdrawn during the trial and “should not have been made in the first place”.
He added: “It had no materiality and wholly failed and, in my judgment, was an unattractive allegation to make.”
Without that allegation, the residue of the case against Mr Harris was left “in some disarray”, he said.
However, he 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 in a statement: “Our sole motivation for pursuing this claim was, and has remained throughout, to obtain damages for our son Sam who suffered a very serious injury in this accident.
“We are both very relieved that the court has found that Mr and Mrs Perry were negligent as this will now enable us to obtain the specialist support and treatment that Sam needs.”
They added: “While we never wanted the case to conclude at trial, we are pleased that 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.
“The injury that Sam has suffered has and will continue to have a profound effect upon his life. The damages he will receive will hopefully help to improve his quality of life and we hope that the publicity that this case has received will help to prevent other children and families suffering as Sam and his family have.”
A recent government survey estimated that bouncy castles caused between 2,500 and 3,000 injuries each year. In 2006, two women in Co Durham fell to their deaths when a giant inflatable maze, designed by the artist Maurice Agis, tore free of its moorings in high winds.
Articles from our sister site WSJ.com:
You may be asked to subscribe to read certain articles
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I would definitely steer away from these kinds of toys. I think they're incredibly dangerous and have seen first -hand the various injuries suffered by children while on bouncy castles.
But the worst thing would be having to live with the fact that a child was injured on my watch!
Gail, Enniskillen, N. Ireland
The Perrys are to be congratulated for taking out insurance. I guess it was simply an option on the hire contract so we can continue to provide our children with some excitement easily and without fear.
Steve Bush, Cirencester, UK
A worrying decision and one that I hope will be able to be distinguished by other judges in the future. The injured boy needs resources to pay for his care and the judge may have had this in mind. Clearly, we need a no-fault compensation scheme - or a universal personal injury insurance scheme.
Helen , Fleet, UK
What an emotive ruling. Furthermore,yes the child needs care, but if his parents actually took care originally this would not be the case. No parent would let there children do what they want, provided somebody other than themselves was responsible. There is a certain inate parental responsibility.
Chris Eklund, Oxford, England
It would be interesting to read the full judgment and to see to what degree the fact that the parents were insured influenced the decision.
It sounds as if this decision was more about providing for the injured boy than strict legal principles of liability.
Nadia, Hamilton, Bermuda
I honestly cannot believe that the parents of this child are taking NO responsibility for his actions.
It could have happened regardless of who was supervising/playing - even wilst playing football - let's see more obese kids who don't participate in sport....at least they're safe though eh?!
Miss A Wadeson, Lancaster,
Don't worry one of the games consoles will bring out a virtual bouncy castle, to go with virtual tree climbing and nut free conkers so our kids can stay indoors more and get even fatter. Heaven forbid they should feel the rush of adrenaline in the veins.
michael huber, Harrogate, England
my ex wifes aunt bought a trampoline for her kids during a stint in the US - she asked her neighbors advice abt it, as one voivce they sed, before allowing any child other than your own to play on it, get their parents to sign a release.. looks like the bouncy caste brigade will have to follow suit.
zugerman, zurich, switzerland
Bouncy Castles are inherently dangerous They place several fast-moving people without body protection in a confined space, with the added risk of flying out of the front. You would never run a gym with several people sharing one trampoline. Such risks should be "Designed Out" - and can be.
Adrian Fisher, Durweston, Dorset
Health and saftey gone mad, no wounder all our children are growing isoltaed and alone.
Mr W Jones, Liverpool, England
This is crazy! Accidents do happen and like any victim of an accidient, I'm sorry for Mrs Harris - but her actions have made growing up a lot less fun for a lot of children.
Ian sankey, Plymouth, Devon
People with Aspergers (AS) often have dyspraxia - clumsiness. And some with AS can find it difficult to estimate danger. Given this, I disagree with the Judge - Sam's father should have prevented Sam from playing on the bouncy castle, only he knew of his son's condition. I have AS myself and a PhD.
David, Dublin, Ireland
Supervised properly, maybe everyone should wear a crash helmet because this accident would have happened whether the bouncy castle was being watched or not. Accidents happen but children can not be treated with a kid glove all their lives.
John, Uxbridge, England
Unfortunately the fears of injuries and liability spurred by this ruling will probably all but eliminate bouncy castles from children's events. It was a tragic freak accident caused by negligence of common-sense precautions. But combined with litigation that is all it takes.
D.L. Anderson, Crossett, AR/U.S.A.
I fear that this will make a lot of parents think twice before having parties for their children.Those that do should probably consider taking out insurance to cover any claims that could be made against them if a child gets hurt.
Sue, Essex, UK
Thats it - I've cancelled my daughters fourth birthday party - I'm not running the risk now that prescidents been set. Not blaming Mr and Mrs Harris - but just forget it I'm not allowing a bouncy castle within 100 yards of my house. An upset four year old will get over it.
James, Glasgow,
I have every sympathy with the parents of the injured boy, but it is surely be impossible to oversee or indeed to anticipate what a child might choose to do on a bouncy castle. Life I am afraid is about risks - we cannot live in a sheltered bubble. Why do we always have to look to apportion blame?
Franz Atkinson, Dorchester, Dorset