Harris v Perry (1) Perry (2) Harris (3)
High Court 8th May 2008
Date
09/06/2008
The Issues
Supervision of children - bouncy castle - whether level of supervision of children at party was adequate.
The Facts
The Claimant was a minor born in June 1994. The First and
Second Defendants were husband and wife who organised a party for their
triplet's 10th birthday on 10th September 2005. They hired a bouncy
castle and the bungee run and put it on a playing field behind their
house. The playing field was open to the public. The Third Defendant,
Mr Harris, was the Claimant's father who organised, on the same day as
the party, a regular football training session for youngsters on the
same field. The Claimant was one of fifteen boys of a similar age
attending that training session.
When the football session was over, at about 12pm, the Claimant went
onto the bouncy castle and was seriously injured following a collision
with another boy, who was doing a somersault using the equipment, and
whose heel struck the Claimant a severe blow on the head. The football
session was attended by some of the parents. Amongst them was a Mrs
Clayton who had brought along her daughter, Liberty. Mrs Perry, who was
watching over the bouncy castle and the bungee run, invited Liberty to
play on it. With her mother's permission she did so. At the end of the
football session, Mrs Clayton's two sons, Beau and Luke, went over to
joint Liberty. The Claimant and a friend, Simon Spicer, asked the
Claimant's father if they could go onto the bouncy castle. Mr Harris
said that it was not possible because it was a private party and gave
them a football to kick around. They went to the bouncy castle anyway
and asked Mrs Perry whether they could join in. The Claimant's case was
that Mrs Perry said 'yes'. Mrs Perry said that she said 'no'. In any
event, they went onto the bouncy castle and shortly after the accident
happened when Sammy Pring did a flip or a somersault.
The Decision
On the evidence, the likelihood was that Mrs Perry had given
permission. As to supervision, Mrs Perry was in attendance throughout
the incident, but had to supervise two pieces of equipment, the bungee
run and the bouncy castle. It was not possible to maintain a permanent
look out on both sets of equipment. The level of supervision of the
bouncy castle was therefore inadequate.
Was the failure to supervise causative of the accident?
There was no evidence to suggest that there had been somersaulting or
unruly behaviour during the morning. Whilst the incident had not been
observed by Mrs Perry, because her attention was diverted by the bungee
run, it had all happened very quickly.
No-one was in a position to intervene to stop the activity as soon as
Simon could be seen to try a "flip". Whilst it would have needed a
rapid response the evidence was such from one of the boys that if he
had been told to be careful he would have refrained. The probabilities
of such effective intervention were enhanced by the boy's warning that
he had shouted "look out I am going to do a somersault", which was not
heard or acted on. It followed that the short fall in supervision was
causative of the accident.
The boy that had called out had been described as "a gentle giant". He
was an enormously tall boy who was 3 or 4 years older than the other
children using the bouncy castle. The risks of a damaging collision
were manifestly enhanced by mixing children of different sizes and the
avoidance of such a situation was at the forefront of all
recommendations for safe use. He should not have been allowed to use
the bouncy castle at the same time as the younger and smaller children
and this too was causative of the accident.
The case against the father had to fail. It was his position that the
party appeared to be properly monitored and his perception was
reasonable. |
News 
and are bound by their code of conduct