Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Was the judge BU or is this a sign of things to come?

16 replies

EllieMe · 12/03/2018 16:55

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/bosworth-water-park-crazy-golf-14400320

Mum faces SIX-FIGURE compensation bill after son blinded friend during crazy golf

The club struck a nine-year-old school friend in the face, causing a devastating injury that left him blind in his left eye

A mum whose “boisterous” 10-year-old blinded a friend with a crazy golf club during his birthday party is facing a six-figure compensation bill. The birthday boy was annoyed he could not hole the ball when he took a “big swing like a professional golfer” with the metal club on an amusement park crazy golf course. The club struck a nine-year-old school friend in the face, causing a devastating injury that left him blind in his left eye, the High Court heard.

And now, in a case that will strike fear into the heart of any parent, a top judge has ruled the 10-year-old’s mother to pay the injured boy damages. She knew her son - who cannot be identified and was referred to only as J - was “boisterous and required firm handling”, said Mrs Justice Whipple. And, ordering the mother to pay damages to the injured boy - S - the judge said she “negligently” failed to tell her lad not to swing the club too high.

The amount of compensation payable to S is bound to be a six-figure sum, although an exact figure has yet to be calculated.

This is what happened

J and two of his schoolfriends were celebrating his birthday at the Bosworth Water Park, near Nuneaton, when disaster struck in 2013.
His mother was close by the crazy golf course with the family dog, but the first she knew of the accident was when she heard the other boy scream. S’s parents said J was “volatile and unpredictable”, but the birthday boy’s parents insisted he was “a normal, well-behaved, boy”.

J’s mother said she had asked the boys whether they had played crazy golf before and they all assured her that they had and knew what to do. They had all been on a crazy golf party before and she warned them to “keep their distance whilst each player took their turn.”

A judge at Leicester County Court found last year that, although J was sometimes impulsive, he was “not a dangerous child”.He had never shown any signs of being violent, and Judge Alison Hampton said his mother had reasonably supervised the party.

But, overturning that ruling today, Mrs Justice Whipple said the mother was aware of her son’s “character traits.” She told the High Court in Birmingham: “J required firm handling because he could be boisterous and impetuous. His mother knew this. “I conclude that it was reasonable to expect J’s mother to give a firm and clear instruction to J that he should not swing his club. “This was the very minimum which was required...J would not have swung his club if he had been told not to.

“The failure to provide firm handling, in the form or a clear instruction to J, was a negligent failure by J’s mother”.

Other liabilities

The water park’s managers, the Bosworth Water Trust, were also found liable to compensate S for his injuries. The crazy golf course was “aimed at children” and there should have been a sign in place, warning golfers against raising their clubs too high. Only after the accident was a risk assessment carried out, a notice put up explaining the rules of the game, and metal putters replaced by rubber ones. How the damages bill will be split between J’s mother and the trust has yet to be decided.

OP posts:
dorifish · 12/03/2018 17:20
  1. we dont actually know how much they will actually be compensated.. its speculation.
  1. why wasn't the mother or an adult host there?
  1. as usual news reporting of cases is patchy and misses crucial elements. there would have been more to it than what made it to the article. id take it with a huge dose of salt.

My sympathies lay with the blinded child and his family tbh.

shallichangemyname · 12/03/2018 17:20

It's common practice in Holland (don't know about other countries) to obtain insurance for the acts of your children. Friends of ours had it and it came in real handy when our naughty 3 yo DSs drew pictures all over our mutual neighbours' car with a sharp stone, which required a complete respray and new lights.
Maybe it will become a thing here.

EllieMe · 12/03/2018 17:23

My sympathies are completely with the injured boy. It's time parents were held accountable for the actions of their out of control children.

OP posts:
DalekDalekDalek · 12/03/2018 17:24

So if you think the parents should be held accountable then what is your thread about?

Pengggwn · 12/03/2018 17:29

Erm... I can see it from both sides. Why shouldn't the child be compensated, and it may be unreasonable to say the child was 'out of control'. I don't know. But if the child was 'volatile and unpredictable', then the mother is responsible.

Sn0tnose · 12/03/2018 17:48

Absolutely tragic that the child has been blinded and he has my every sympathy.

I'm really on the fence about this. The child is likely to need some adaptations growing up, as well as help coming to terms with the trauma of what has happened to him and who should pay for that, if not J's parents?

On the other hand, if the parents of S considered J to be 'volatile and unpredictable' then what on earth were they thinking allowing S to go anywhere near J when he'd be swinging a golf club about? That was never going to end well.

I don't agree that the venue should be held responsible though.

EllieMe · 12/03/2018 17:58

So if you think the parents should be held accountable then what is your thread about?

Read the title - the question is there.

OP posts:
tortelliniforever · 12/03/2018 18:03

I can see both sides but on balance I think it's unfair. My 8 year old did something similar playing crazy gold yesterday! Luckily he didn't hit anyone (I was closest). He thought that's how you played. I didn't realize he was going to do it until it was too late.

Notthemessiah · 12/03/2018 18:20

There's no such thing as 'accidents' any more - everyone is always looking for someone else to blame, either for their own failings or here in what seems to be a complete freak event that could happen to any child or parent. Unless there is more to it than has already posted, it seems completely mad to hold the mother and, more particularly, the company liable. Good old English justice at work.

ScreamingValenta · 12/03/2018 18:21

Shouldn't the park have some kind of accident liability insurance for this purpose?

I find the argument that if the child had been told not to swing the club too high, he wouldn't have done, therefore the mother is liable, a bit strange - how do they know the child wouldn't have got carried away and done this anyway?

Should the mother really be expected to risk assess for everything that could possibly go wrong?

I note the split of damages has yet to be decided - I hope it's only a nominal share for the mother.

LaurieFairyCake · 12/03/2018 18:22

10 is the age of criminal responsibility?

There’s no way a parent should be sued (where would we buy liability insurance ?) for a daft twatty thing a kid does.

Notthemessiah · 12/03/2018 18:22

And really, how many 10 year old boys aren't boisterous at times, especially around their friends.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 12/03/2018 18:24

It'll probably become the norm for parents to sign disclaimers before waving their children off on a play date or birthday party.

And I'm only half joking.

Roselind · 12/03/2018 18:32

I should think the case was most likely brought by the insurance company for the park to test whether or not there is liability. They may have brought the mother into the action to try and limit their own liability or because she had some kind of insurance which they in turn wanted to bear part of the liability. I very much doubt the report contains the full picture.

dorifish · 12/03/2018 19:16

in England and Wales children of 10 and above can be found guilty of crimes.
a reasonable ten year old would have known not to swing it and to take care. no you wouldn't necessarily expect to be blinded but you knew no good would come out of it.

newspapers and tabloids are really not the best or most accurate reflection of what actually was said and submitted to the court.

Avasarala · 12/03/2018 19:25

The mother wasn't supervising- she was off with the dog. When a bunch of kids are playing a game which invokes clubs, you stay close and organise them so when someone has a turn, the others are back and out the way. Same as bowling. You don't walk away and leave them to it, especially if your kid is excitable. Her fault. A kid is blind in one day and will have mental trauma to deal with.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page