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.

[supermother]

I think my daughters are going to start with a similar career to mine. I think that's great as it's been fun for me but I didn't suggest it or push them into it. In fact I'm surprised. My brother became a psychiatrist like my father. An acting family I was reading about today have a daughter going into acting. I suppose children do often tend to be interested in what their parents do or see it as the norm, despite all the careers books I've bought them over the years. I even paid for daughter 1 to have half a day's career assessment in London a few years ago when she was at university.

I suspect most people attracted to a site for alpha mummies are probably in the mother of youngish-children phase rather than mother old enough to be grandmother with flourishing career stage so may be child careers is not such a good topic.

The extent to which we try to avoid the mistakes of our parents is interesting too. M mother worked for 13 years and then had me. She always resented her loss of status. When she died I found she'd hidden letters from grateful patients telling my father how brilliant he was, how he'd saved their lives etc. She was far too clever to have given up work but no one would have stopped her carrying on so in a sense she chose to live within her own misery. More importantly is the extent to which the sins of the father are passed on to the sons or whatever, that the abused abuse, the dysfunctional become themselves dysfunctional, how to avoid f ucking up your own children when your own parents did a good job of f ucking you up. Not only do they get your genes but also your own dysfunction.

And (except I can't be bothered to argue it again) whether housewives in 2008 are giving their children a picture that women serve and men work which is a much stronger message than any verbal advice that of course many women work when they have small babies quite happily. People copy their parents, their father down the pit (or on the dole), their father into psychiatry and the parenting patterns to which they were exposed passed on to their children.

[Delilah]

Supermother, now that you mention I think it does look a bit like the crew are deliberately trying to steer us away from any topic which might spark off another SAHM/WM handbags-at-dawn dustup. Which is a pity, as most of us fit badly in either category so can take sides depending on mood.

I think the drinking thread is quite a good one, although they obviously wanted us to talk about drugged-up mummies rather than drugged-up teenagers.

How about a gripping thread about Who Takes Junior to Hospital (hubby, last two times) or Emigrating With Children and A Job (a whole range of threads, there), or Would You Recommend Your Own Choice of Career To Your Daughter (in my case, no. Lawyering part-time was a mug's game; and if she plans to work full-time or for herself when she does work (which I recommend) she could do something interesting!)

[Eluned]

My daughter had a pretty bad accident on a bouncy castle at a summer fete in England because of a boisterous 9 year old when she was about 5. I was watching the whole time but it happened so fast; he sort of landed on her, kneed her in the face, elbowed her in the throat, stamped on her hip and left her wimpering in the foetal position. I'm not sure how much of it was an accident actually, he did appear to jump on her on purpose but I don't think he expected it to hurt as much as it did and when she squealed he tried to clambour off her but made it worse. He was a chubby thing, probably didnt realize his own strength but at the time all I was thinking was 'OMG THE LITTLE BASTARD'S GOING TO KILL MY BABY', I climbed onto the bouncy castle and carried her off it. She was ok in the end, winded, bloody nose and bruised hip but kids are very robust aren't they? I was so angry at the boy for weeks though because my boys at that age were so careful and protective of younger children and I just took for granted that all boys took extra care around small girls.

I don't know about the legal stuff, it didn't cross my mind to sue anyone. In a way it was our fault because we didn't forsee any problem in putting different age groups on the bouncy castle at the same time and I did give the boy a big telling off (in Welsh because in all the panic I'd forgotten where I was.. I think he got the jist though haha)I have let them go on bouncy castles since but only with children of the same age and size. It's funny though, the children are forever having accidents that don't panic me at all, I just get The Box out and deal with it but there's something about another child jumping on yours that brings your heart into your throat.

[Emily]

Everything is such a nightmare now. When I was teaching in London the paperwork to go on a school trip was enormous.

I am not a fan of bouncy castles, though I had plenty of fun on them as a kid! It is a very hard issue...what's the likelihood of something happening like Sam's accident however when it does happen the consequences are huge.

I just wouldn't hire a bouncy castle for a party. Too much stress.

If there is one at a party where my cild attends (she is only 2 so obviously she won't get on one for a while), I would stand there and supervise her.

[Supermother]

Don't find any of the recent ones interesting at all.

Could we write about a letter in today's Times which says women can and often do want to lead and do well at work and we need less discrimination at home not more theories that we are only designed to serve and help around the house (or indeed organise parties).

I suppose we could change this a little to suit me...what about the issue of who organises the party. I have sometimes been appalled to call up about a party invitation and the father suggests he has no knowledge about it - I almost feel like saying in 2008 do you really live in such an unfair and sexist home that your wife organises the party. Women are doing themselves down and making things harder for them at work every time they accept they are responsible for more at home than the man.

Now of course in some cases woman might do party and man does children's homework supervision but it often doesn't end up being very fair at all and women are to blame at being such pathetic negotiators at home in accepting unequal situations.

Mind you in year 23 of motherhood may be parties are losing their appeal. The twins have had a "free play" party (their choice) the last 2 years. Invite 40 children. Leave to play. Put on the table food including cakes. Leave children to help self. Parents collect after 2 hours. Worked very well. No deaths yet.

[asilon]

Bushra, we had a big party a couple of years ago (in my mum's garden, it's bigger than ours!), and had a bouncy castle for the kids: it was 50 quid for 24 hours - hardly anything to show off about!

[Kim]

Supermother - I assume you're being provocative as usual, but surely this is a subject of interest even to those Alphamummies who employ nannies? What if your nanny is taking care of your child and someone else's child - who's liable if child 2 has an accident?

[Delilah]

I wonder if the mother supervising the bouncy castle was told that the child had Asperger's before she agreed to let him have a go. If she had known maybe she would have supervised him more closely.

I think most household insurance policies include accidents to visitors, if not you can usually add it at little cost. We always made sure ours had one in case our nanny had an accident; also because the house was quite decrepit and needed work, and if a tradesman was crushed by falling strapwork plaster or snagged his high heels on a loose carpet and fell down our four flights of stairs, we'd be liable. (Anything for you, SM).

[supermother]

[Is every thread about these child things and nothing about a relevant topic to alpha mummies?

Can we not have even something trivial like make up high heels and dress at work; or how to become CEO; or managing nannies; or how to run a big home or even child psychology]

[Lazy Mummy]

Debbie -

I'm in the US and none of our friends ask for disclaimers/liability statements when arranging for children to come & play. HOWEVER, I do know that if your child is with someone else, it's helpful to have a "loco parentis" type of statement so that if there is an accident, that person can get the hospitals to treat the child while waiting for you to rush to the scene. That may be why some of the people you knew in the US did such things.

(We have such a statement for our nanny & for the preschool too).

[kieransmum]

Where can you get such an accident policy, Gipsy? It sounds a very good idea. I have small kids running through my house all the time...

[Gipsy]

Margot - that's the real story here and I would hope that it doesn't get lost. Very well put.

Mum of Two - I have an accident policy, covering anyone who might have an accident in my house or my garden. It wasn't at all expensive. I don't do anything risky in my house! But you never know what might happen. For just a couple of pounds a month, I know that if that freak accident should ever occur then either myself or the visitor's family won't have to worry about finances.

If I were in the position that this family is in, then I think I'd sue as well. I'd really rather I didn't have to - I would rather that there was proper support for those who are disabled in any way, but the fact is there isn't.

I wouldn't sue for any other reason though. My nephew fell off a picnic bench in a council run cafe in a park, which normally wouldn't be a problem at all, but a small bolt was left sticking out the bottom of the bench and he cut open his forehead just above the eye.

No permanent damage was done, at the most he might have a little bit of a scar. The cafe was horrified about the incident, and has had all its benches and tables looked at to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

It was just one of those freak things and these happen from time to time. No-one even considered litigation.

Had the bolt permanently damaged his vision though, then it might have been a different story. Lets say he had been left permanently blind - then he would need a certain amount of care and assistance for the rest of his life. In that instance, suing might be the only route to ensure his financial future.

[Winemonkey]

Just to 'second' the comments about having to go to Court to get the insurers to pay out - the parents who hired the castle didn't admit liability so Court was the only way to sort it. I think the Judge acknowledged the potentially damaging effect of the ruling when he gave leave to appeal.
This isn't about a blame culture or 'turning into the States' it is about being sensible - the instructions for the Castle clearly said children shouldn't do flips and that children of different sizes shouldn't be on at the same time. Just enforcing those simple things would have saved all of this hassle.

[mumoftwo]

I'm not quite sure who holds the insurance policy, though, is it the hosts who take it out when they hire the castle or an accident policy held by the parents (and do people normally have these)?

[j]

True, Margot, you would hope that 24/7 care for a severely disabled boy would come on the NHS. It's a bit of a worry to think that it doesn't (goes off and checks child accident insurance policy).

[margot]

There are quite a few more things about this which I read in the paper today which are relevant. The first is that the boy was not even 'at' the party. He was playing nearby and he and his father asked if he could join in. So the families, it seems from the reports, did not know each other already. Secondly, the reason they are suing is presumably because there IS insurance, and as someone else pointed out, a court case is the only way to get the insurer to pay up. The reason they need the money is that the mother has already had to give up work to care for the child because the care on offer through the local authority is inadequate. So this is actually about the way we as a society fund and deal with children with disabilities, but now enacted through the courts in a way which has shocking repercussions for anyone who invites other children into their home.

[bushra]

given the extent of the boy's injuries in this story i do think the mother was right to sue. in general i personally can't stand bouncy castles, for me they are a way of showing off and spoiling your kids.it won't be long before the kids are insisting on stretch limos for their tenth birthdays.

[peter Grand]

Children at play is a hazardous business and they need some form of supervision or education no matter what activities they participate in. Over 30,000 inflatables are hired out in the course of a summer weekend and accidents are rare. Sure youngsters take knocks and bumps but this particular injury is far from the norm.

If you hire from a reputable company and you supervise correctly you should not have any problems. A free information sheet on how to hire safely is available at www.inflatednews.co.uk/inf5.pdf or call our office on 01442245700 for further advice

[Debbie]

The UK is becoming like the states where everyone litigates at the drop of a hat. When I lived in the US (before children), friends with kids who had other children over for a play date, would get written permission from the parent to treat them in an emergency, disclaim responsibility etc, - all that to have their school friend over for morning tea! A really sad state of affairs.

Although I do agree that often it is to get the insurance company to pay up to cover the cost of looking after the injured party, if the court doesn't apportion blame they won;t pay.

[Moi]

I would have never let a 15 year old boy inside the castle with the kids. It is not responsible. Accidents happen, but some of them can be avoided and must be avoided.

[j]

Mo2 I think sometimes you sue cos that is a condition of getting the accident insurance to pay up. They are usually under-written themselves, ie they have laid off the risk on the markets. The markets wont pay them to pay you unless a court establishes where the fault lies.

[mumoftwo]

Initially when I heard about this case, I thought 'what about the parents, where were they?'. I still do think they share the duty of care, although whether they can be expected to follow round an 11 year old at all times at a birthday party is probably a bit debatable. However, having thought about it, I do think that the hosts do have a responsibility; a bouncy castle is meant to be supervised, unlike say playing on bikes or rough-play. Personally I hate bouncy-castles for precisely the reasons J has laid out- children get bumped and cry all the time on them and it only takes a tiny weigh difference for a little one to go flying up into the air and land badly. I would prefer it if they were play fighting, there really is less chance of getting hurt.

To me, however, the real question is: even if you can sue, should you sue? Would you, for example, sue your best friend if your child was badly injured at her child's birthday party on a bouncy castle? If the hosts don't have insurance (and let's hope they have), they would be liable for over a million pounds. I hope I would be inclined to see it as a terrible terrible accident rather than as an opportunity to sue.

[j]

having done many school fetes serving my turn controlling a bouncy castle, I do think it is significant that the case seems to have hinged on the fact that she wasnt looking and controlling at the time.

You do have to watch them, you do have to insist they take their shoes off (odd that an un-shod heel could pierce a skull- did he have shoes on?) and you do have to do a bit of weight management. Under-threes get their own session, then bigger kids all together and TBH I wouldnt have let the 15 year old bigger boy on there in the first place except by himself, cos ten stone of hurtling boy is quite a missile.

I think the whole point of the case is that these things are safe if you manage them sensibly- if they were instrinsicaly dangerous then she would presumably have been held not responsible.

[Nikki]

Yet another example of the blame society we live in today and increasingly following the US's example of such a culture.

Such a shame.