Summer is finally here and we are all enjoying the recent hot weather and hoping that this is going to last throughout July, August and beyond. With the 6 weeks school holidays fast approaching I’m sure many people will be looking at ways to entertain their children and one popular way in which to do this would be to hire a bouncy castle, particularly for summer birthday parties.
However due to the nature of bouncy castles there is always risk of injury and it is important that parents and guardians who are thinking of hiring these types of inflatables do properly think of the risks involved and be aware of the required level of care and supervision.
The most famous case involving injuries sustained on a bouncy castle is the Court of Appeal case of Harris V Perry 2008 which established the precedent for the duty of care owed by parents to their own and other children when they are playing together.
In this case the Claimant, an 11 year old boy, suffered serious and permanent head injuries after being kicked in the head by another boy aged 15. The Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Perry hired the inflatable castle, along with an inflatable bungee run, for their children’s birthday party and Mrs. Perry was supervising both inflatable’s in a position that she could see both.
However, Mrs. Perry momentarily turned her back on the bouncy castle to attend another child on the bungee run and it was during this time when the incident occurred.
Initially, the claimant was successful in claiming damages for personal injury against the defendants after a High Court judge ruled that Mr. and Mrs. Perry had failed to exercise reasonable care in supervising the bouncy castle. However, this was later overruled by the Court of Appeal who allowed Mr. and Mrs. Perry’s appeal and when making this decision they considered 8 factors:
| 1. Mr. and Mrs. Perry were required to take such care as a reasonably careful parent would take for the safety of their child. |
| 2. When determining the above it is necessary to consider any facts that Mr. and Mrs. Perry ought to have known including relevant information contained in the hire agreement. |
| 3. It is reasonable that a parent could foresee that there would be a risk of some injury on a bouncy castle if the children where behaving boisterously however it is not reasonably foreseeable that such injury is likely to be serious. |
| 4. The standard of care on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Perry was to protect children against foreseeable risk of physical harm falling short of serious injury. |
| 5. The duty of care did not require that the children playing on a bouncy castle be kept under constant surveillance. |
| 6. Mrs. Perry acted reasonably in thinking she could supervise both inflatables. It was not reasonably foreseeable that when turning her back to help a child on one inflatable that it would expose children on the other to unacceptable risk. |
| 7. Mrs. Perry did not breach her duty of care when allowing the 15 year old boy to play on the bouncy castle with younger children. The boy was known to be responsible and gentle and none of the parents of the younger children expressed any concern. |
| 8. The manner in which Mrs. Perry had supervised the inflatables accorded with the demands of reasonable care. |
The Court of Appeal Judge, Lord Phillips concluded that this was a tragic accident and that Mrs. Perry could not be found at fault for the way in which she had acted. He stated that it is impossible to foresee all the risks that arise when children are playing with other children and that minor injuries are commonplace. Finally, he said that it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty on parents to keep children under constant supervision.
