Perry & Anor v Harris (A Minor)

An adult who permits children to use play equipment must take the precautions which a reasonably careful parent would take for a child of the relevant age. The required precautions depend critically on risks which the adult knew or ought reasonably to have foreseen.

Reasonable supervision does not invariably require constant surveillance. Where only ordinary physical injury, rather than serious harm, is reasonably foreseeable, it may suffice for a responsible adult to remain nearby and ready to stop boisterous behaviour. A difference in children’s size does not automatically require their separation. The larger child’s known temperament, previous conduct and the equipment’s design are relevant.

An 11-year-old child suffered severe brain injuries when a much taller 15-year-old boy performed a somersault on a hired bouncy castle and accidentally struck him. The appellants had hired the castle and a bungee run for their children’s birthday party. One appellant permitted the injured child to use the castle but was helping another child on the bungee run when the accident occurred.

The High Court held the appellants liable in negligence. It found that reasonable care required uninterrupted supervision of the castle and the separation of children of markedly different sizes.

The appellants challenged both findings. The central issue was whether a reasonably careful parent could have supervised the equipment as the appellant did, having regard to the risks which she knew or ought to have foreseen.

1. Appeal allowed. The trial judge imposed an unreasonably high standard of care. The appellant’s supervision of the bouncy castle and bungee run satisfied the demands of reasonable care. The accident occurred without fault: paras [42], [46]–[48].

2. Parents cannot eliminate every risk arising when children play together. The law does not generally require constant surveillance or supervision. Where an adult exposes children to circumstances or activities involving an unacceptable risk, however, the adult must provide such supervision or surveillance as they know, or ought to know, is necessary to reduce that risk to an acceptable level: para [34].

3. The applicable standard was the conduct of a reasonably careful parent. The question was what positive precautions such a parent would take for the safety of a child of the claimant’s age. The answer depended critically on the risks which such a parent ought reasonably to foresee. The signed hire agreement could inform that assessment because the appellant had read it. Two other safety documents could not do so because she neither saw nor ought to have seen them: paras [36]–[37].

4. A reasonable parent could foresee that boisterous behaviour might eventually cause a collision and ordinary physical injury. Serious injury, and especially injury of the severity sustained, was not reasonably foreseeable. There was no evidence that bouncy castles had previously caused injuries of this kind with sufficient frequency to place hirers on notice. The required standard therefore protected against foreseeable physical harm falling short of serious injury: paras [38]–[40].

5. That standard did not require uninterrupted observation of the castle. It required a responsible adult to remain nearby and be ready to intervene if play became boisterous. The appellant reasonably believed that she could supervise both inflatables and could briefly turn to help a child on the bungee run without creating an unacceptable risk: paras [41]–[43].

6. A larger child may cause more serious injury in a collision, but size difference does not automatically require separation. The older boy was known as responsible and gentle. He had played with smaller children without incident, and the castle was designed to accommodate adults. Permitting him to play with smaller children was therefore not negligent: paras [44]–[46].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2008] EWCA Civ 907, the court allowed the defendants’ appeal and set aside the finding of liability in negligence.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: David Steel J gave judgment for the claimant on liability, holding that the defendants had negligently failed to maintain continuous supervision and to separate children of materially different sizes. Assessment of damages had been adjourned.