Is this bouncy castle too dangerous?

Everyone will agree that it's very very sad that an 11-year-old boy named Sam was permanently injured on a bouncy castle when a heavier boy accidentally struck him on the head with his heel. Yet the ruling yesterday by the High Court is bad news for parents and indeed the UK at large.

The mother who had hired the bouncy castle (and was hosting Sam) had given Sam permission to get on but had not watched him properly, the judge found. At the same time, the judge dismissed the case against Sam's father, who was also at the party and named as the third defendant, strangely enough.

Sam's parents said in a statement: "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."

But where is the parents' responsibility in this? Where is the acknowledgment that jumping on a bouncy castle, riding a bike, roughhousing in the sitting room has its risks? If you're worried that the kids will get too boisterous or are at risk, you have a responsibility as a parent to look after your child.

This kind of action is a part of the need to find someone to blame, no matter the incident. Coming up at the next summer fete or birthday party: legal disclaimers signed at the door?

Comments

[Helen]

I think we need a no-fault compensation scheme in this country - or everyone should have to have personal injury insurance. So instead of suing someone to establish blame for your injury, you claim on your own insurance for your treatment or long term care. If this judgment stands, children will have a very boring childhood as nobody will risk anyone having an accident on their property. I hope that in future cases judges will be able to distinguish it and therefore not follow it.

I am utterly shocked that anyone thinks this is the host/mother's fault, responsibility or negligence. The bouncy castle was for a 10 year old's birthday party. This huge lad and his dad turn up. Huge lad wags his tail and asks to have a go, host/mother doesn't like to say no, goes back to supervising the other fairground ride for her kids party. The Dad disappears, not keeping an eye on his too-old-for-the-party son who also happens to be Aspergers which means he's clumsy and less able to read social/emotional clues like appropriate body language. WHOSE responsibility? Surely it is the lad's Dad's??? NOT host/mother who was just trying to let her kids friends enjoy the party. Gatecrasher guests from hell then sue for millions. Argh! It must be arental responsibility to supervise your own children under 16. Otherwise play dates are an impossibility.

[kieransmum]

Oh yes, me too, MoT, I think the private health care companies in this country are appalling at wriggling out of their obligations where possible.
Cruel, in fact.

[mumoftwo]

Yes, Gipsy, that seem sensible to me. I worry that our already rule-bound and risk-averse world would become even more rule-bound and risk-averse if we start thinking of each other constantly through the eyes of insurance companies! Plus, I've had a lot of experience with people fighting medical insurance claims in the US and privately in the UK and know that where there is wriggle room, they will wriggle. Just because you have private insurance doesn't mean you will necessarily get what you need although I know other instances in which they have been great.

[M]

As it happens, KM. I know three quadriplegic people quite well. They all have a combination of health insurance and NHS and it depends on their marital status to some extent; one person is single, so they get a live in carer, for whom they pay a substitute when he's on holiday. One is very wealthy and so gets best wheelchairs, car adaptations, state of the art bath etc and the other is married and has a number of timed carers, as per new caring rules, ie clock in- clock out. It also varies from health district to health district. I think it is a full time job staying abreast of what you can get from charities, NHS, through health insurers and doing the paperwork. All my friends are very intelligent and mentally active, but the sad ones are the young bikers, who aren't bookish, who often feel there's nothing to live for. I don't know how it compares to children though.

[Gipsy]

MoT - I would wholeheartedly agree if I thought that we could rely on the NHS to that degree. And for some people, you can. However, I've known too many people with children with disabilities, and I'm a lot more realistic about what the NHS can and can't do.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking the system. I think the NHS is brilliant, and I'd far rather live in a country with an NHS system than one without.

I'd prefer it if the UK had something like the ACC in New Zealand though.

From the ACC's website: "The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) administers New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme, which provides personal injury cover for all New Zealand citizens, residents and temporary visitors to New Zealand. In return people do not have the right to sue for personal injury, other than for exemplary damages."

[j]

well KM I'm not quite sure. It's a minefield of social services assessments. But I wish that people became the state's responsibility once they were 18. Actually what happens is that they lose their entitlement to many things and the system relies very strongly indeed on the parents. It will probably be the hardest point in my career, trying to hold down a job once my son reaches 18.

[kieransmum]

One question, which those with more disability experience than I can answer.

When they say, they won't have the money to care for him. What level of care is provided for, say, a quadreplegic on the NHS?

I mean an adult, where the parents no longer have responsibility.

[mumoftwo]

I disagree, because although you may be very hospitable and get insurance, this also puts an onus on you to check everyone else is insured and people start undertaking less risky activities to minimise the chance of litigation, just as they have done with school activities. People start thinking through whether their behaviours could be either risky (should I let children who aren't mine bake biscuits in my house and use an oven?) or could be wrongly perceived (should I apply sun-cream to a child who isn't mine if they are wearing a bikini?) Councils spend so much of their budgets on claims against them for, say, a broken paving slab they have less money to mend the paving slabs. I don't see this as progress, nor do I see it as a way to social cohesion; what kind of society has money for personal insurance but not to care for a paraplegic child if they are injured in an accident whether or not they have insurance? That's the point of the NHS, to provide free (at the point of use) care regardless of insurance (agreed Margot that the scandal lies here)!

Certain more risky activities are covered by insurance, driving a car or going abroad where you don't have medical care, or even bouncy castle use, which seems to me more inherently risky than normal playing in a house and for which it seems sensible to have insurance. But you can't insure against the whole of life, or well, you can, but what is the societal cost of turning everyone into potential litigants in a combative legal system?

[j]

sorry meant to say, that means I think Gipsy is absolutely right and actually its about being able to be *more* hospitable, not less. You dont have to do the betadad thing and export all your parties down the road.

After all,we wouldnt drive a kid in an uninsured car, would we?

[j]

I think if you hire a bouncy castle you are automatically insured, so you are automatically sued as well.

I'd rather that TBH that know that down the road was a paraplegic child injured at my house that nobody could afford to care for properly cos it was an uninsured accident. I would, I think, sell the big house (if I had one) rather than have that on my conscience for life.

Though I wouldnt hire one either.

[Gipsy]

MoT - well this thread has certainly made me think about all this a lot more. I took out liability insurance about ten years ago now, simply because I thought it was the hospitable thing to do! It stemmed from some article I'd read. A garden wall had toppled over and left a small child with crippling injuries at a BBQ that was being held in a private garden. No-one sued or anything, and there was no hint of negligence - there was no reason for anyone to think that the wall was in such bad repair that it would topple over, and it was a small wall - to adults at any rate. It was just a small article, and along the lines of this being the sort of freak thing that can occur and no one can prevent. And I just remember thinking that if something like that happened in my house, I'd feel obliged to help as much as possible with that family, even if I had to take out another mortgage to do so, even though it wasn't my fault and there hadn't been anything I could have done to prevent it. The mere fact of me being the host meant that I would have personally responsible. And then I thought (because I do tend to over analyze these things) about how my friend might feel about this - I think most of my friends would feel utterly utterly wretched at imposing any sort of financial burden on me in any way at all, no matter how pressing their need or that of their family. But if I had insurance, then they wouldn't need to feel that way - the financial obligation would be on an anonymous company and not on their friend. It would remove the 'emotional' aspect of it. So then I thought - well how expensive would that be? And actually it wasn't at all. So I went for it, because of course by this time (having the vivid imagination that I do) I could see the whole drama playing out just as if it had happened.

Anyway, sorry to go into such a ramble! I just felt like I should clarify why it is that I'm a bit on the pro side when it comes to having liability insurance. Just put it down to me having too much imagination and always being sure that the worst will happen.

And yes, I did have to sit down a couple of years ago and force myself to cut back on insurance policies, as I had everything covered and most of it was utterly unnecessary.

[bushra]

sigh Asilon, i guess my anti-bouncy castle stance stems from a bad childhood experience where some mean boy kicked me in the face :)

[mumoftwo]

Oh yes, undoubtedly if I knew they had insurance I would sue if I couldn't get the care any other way. I just think it's a shame that the notion of having 'guests' (i.e. people freely invited into your house) is tainted with the thought that they might (need to) sue you if they or their children have an accident and that you need to take out insurance (or check you already have it) to guard against such a possibility. It isn't really what hospitality is all about, is it- a legal relationship?

[Gipsy]

As far as I can remember from having looked into hiring a bouncy castle once before, the insurance is part of the deal.

It is also quite likely that the insurance is the reason the family sued - as the insurance company is the one who'll have to pay out. If the accident had happened when there was no insurance, most likely they wouldn't have sued.

Abetdad - You're rather optimistic about the abilities of the usual soft play worker. Or you're spot on if by fully qualified you mean a teenager who's been police checked (we trust), and completed their induction day/trainee period.

[kieransmum]

KIM; to answer the question, although not directed at me:

Of course I would try and get the sum out of the insurance company, but what if I was unscrupulous or desperate or hard-up and looked at the family and said to myself
"Big house, nice job, they can bloody give us something for this mess"
so sued despite them not having accident insurance?

[Kim]

Mumoftwo: I think the whole thing is about pragmatism. The parents of the injured boy had to find a way to get the money to pay for his care. They knew the parents who hired the castle had liability insurance so they sued them. If they hadn't had insurance, there would have been no point in suing them.

Are you telling me that if your own child was insured in similar circumstances, you'd just take it on the chin and pay for his care yourself? Or would you try and get a decent sum of money out of that large wealthy insurance company, whose role is precisely to pay out in cases of accident or injury?

[kieransmum]

Yes, MOT. That is what scares me.

[Kim]

Thinking about it, I think public liability insurance is probably included as part of one's normal house/contents insurance.

[mumoftwo]

I'm not a lawyer (unlike some of you) but surely if the precedent is set that the host parents are responsible for not continuously supervising the bouncy castle and owe a duty of care to guests in their house then that stands whether or not the person has public liability insurance. In other words, these people are lucky they took out the insurance, if they hadn't, then they still could have been sued and been liable for the care-bill. Or not?

[Kim]

Well, no, ABETADAD, I think everyone's gone a bit crazy about this.

The parents who held the party had apparently taken out public liability insurance, as you should do when you hire something like a bouncy castle. All that's happened is that the insurance company will pay up so this boy can have the care he needs. That's what insurance companies are there for.

[ABETADAD]

The solution is simple.

We do not allow any child to come to our house without their parents.

We do not hold birthday parties at our house but instead at a local sport centre where the food, party play and activities are all supervised by fully qualified and insured staff.

We do this to prevent anyone making a legal claim against us.

[Kim]

I think Margot is right about this - the only way the parents could get money to look after their son was to sue the other parents. So it's not really about a "blame" culture, as Jennifer says.

A similar case happened near us recently, though I'm not sure what the outcome was. A 15 year old boy went to a friend's house, and a group of them (about six altogether, I think) got on the trampoline together. Someone fell on top of the 15 year old and he was completely paralysed from the neck down. His parents sued the other parents because they hadn't been supervising the boys, and because the trampoline wasn't in a safe position.

Obviously you could reasonably argue that a 15 year old should have the sense to assess risk, but I suspect the situation was the same, ie this was the only way the parents could get money to care for him.

[Delilah]

Yes, it's interesting how careers go down certain families partly because of familiarity. My maternal grandfather was the son of sharecrop farmer in Michigan but became a dentist (on a scholarship) because he was clever and dextrous and pushy, in other circumstances he would have been a wonderful jeweller, which in fact is what one of my uncles became. Another uncle became a geologist, and his son has become an electrician, while all the other offspring (of both sexes) have become rather esoteric scientists of one kind or another. But I would say that they are just as much influenced if not more so by my maternal grandmother who, though university educated, never "worked" as such but was forever breeding things, inventing things and filing patents and employing people on production lines in the basement of their house. It may be unfair but I can't imagine a baseborn woman getting away with all of that in the 40's anywhere but America. My father's side of the family are all Dutch housewives and engineers of one kind or another, and they found my mother and her family rather messy and shocking. In fact my mother did too, I hope my children don't reject me in the same way. My father became an engineer to please his father. He always wished he'd been a lawyer, and was pleased as punch when I became one. It took some time for me to realise that I was pleasing him rather than myself in choosing my career; in fact I would have been better off looking to my maternal grandmother, but she died before I was born and I had bought into the idea that not only was she a bit of a nutcase a woman needed a "professional" qualification to survive in the workplace, because simple ability would not be rewarded. In fact, I think women do a lot better generally if they just get out and do things for themselves, not hope that one day Prince Charming will notice their qualifications and sweep them off to a boardroom on a white horse.

[supermother]

..ah blame, well that may be comes into my post too above... should we blame our parents for the bad genes they pass on to us and their lack of skills as parents? Or do we work with where we are and get on with things? A mixture probably. We saw my father yesterday who looks like me may not have long live and that makes you think about your own childhood too.