Bouncy castle injury - liability case overturned at appeal

[SaintGeorge]

Common sense in the courts for a change. The previous ruling that the parents who hired a bouncy castle for a party were liable to pay damages for a child's serious injury has been overturned.

Article here

[lulumama]

glad to hear it, totally agree with cali.

[snooks]

i always thought that the compensation would be coming from the insurance company, not the actual people who hired it. agree that it was no-one's fault though.

[Blandmum]

I think that this a terribly sad case.

the parents sued ( I think) to try to make sure that their son had the money to have the care that he will need for the rest of his life.

all children (people for that matter) should have the care that they need regardless of the cause of their condition. We shouldn't have tp prove that someone was at fault. A good society take care of those in need, and not just those who can point the finger at someone

[pinkteddy]

thank goodness common sense has prevailed. You can't possibly be responsible for all the children at a party. Horrible for the family though. Why won't the local authority pay for care?

[GooseyLoosey]

Thank-God. I was going to hire one for dd's birthday and thought of a tear off slip at the bottom of the invitations, along the lines of:

"My child would like to come to Gosling's birthday party and I hereby waive all liability in relation to any loss or personal injury to either myself or my child howsoever arising at the party and I agree that GooseyLoosey will not be liable for any costs or charges of any nature arising as a result of my child and myself attending the party".

It might need to be a bit longer though to cover absolutely everything. I'm not quite sure that I have squared off injury to feelings if a child does not win at pass the parcel.

[2shoes]

how sad for the poor family though, MB makes a very good point. but sadly unless you have money accesing care can be totally hit and miss and depend a lot on where you live.
(never quite understood why the party parents were blmed though.)

[TotalChaos]

agree with MB.

[bagsforlife]

I agree with MB too. The parents of the injured child will now have to re-think how on earth they are going to manage looking after a severely disabled child (teenager even wasn't he?). I don't agree the hirers of the bouncy castle should be held personally liable, but I think it was their insurance that would have paid out, and now what the hell are those parents of the injured child going to do?? Their child is going to need a lifetime of looking after now.

[CoteDAzur]

Those who say insurance of the host family who hired bouncy castle insurance should pay regardless of hosts' innocence severely misunderstand the concept of 'insurance'.

It was a tragic accident. Hosts weren't responsible, therefore their insurance can't be expected to pay.

If parents had health insurance, it would pay. The fact that they tried to sue the host family suggests they didn't have insurance.

Still, I agree that this child has to be taken care of. Social security will have to pay the bills for his care - i.e. the taxpayer.

[Upwind]

Sympathy for the family of the injured child. But this was plainly an ACCIDENT. They happen all the time and there should be no need to find a scapegoat.

Can you imagine how high insurance premiums would be if we were liable for any child who injured themselves at a party we threw? What about those who can't afford insurance as it is, like me? If my friend's DS with ADHD flings himself off the sofa (as he often does) and lands badly, am I personally liable for any injury?

[HappyMummyOfOne]

The judge made the right decision IMHO. Sadly, this was an accident but just that, an accident.

How many children would have missed out on having fun, how many parents scared to let their children have castles at parties etc all because of one incident.

Sadly, we do live in a "blame and sue culture" but at least the appeal judge had common sense and saw this case for what it was - a tragic accident with no one at fault.