Harris v Perry & Ors

Occupiers or organisers of children’s inflatable equipment must provide supervision reasonably proportionate to the risks created by the equipment and the way it is being used. Where two items of equipment require uninterrupted supervision, attending to one may leave supervision of the other inadequate. The risk of injury is also materially increased where children of markedly different sizes use a bouncy castle together. A breach must nevertheless be shown to have caused the accident. A parent is not liable merely because a child uses equipment after being told that it formed part of a private party, where the parent reasonably permits the child to seek permission from the supervising adult and no special supervision is required.

The claimant, an 11-year-old boy, was injured on a bouncy castle at a children’s party organised by the first and second defendants. The equipment had been erected on a playing field also used for the claimant’s football training session. The claimant entered the castle and was struck on the head by the heel of an older and substantially larger boy performing a somersault.

The issues were whether the claimant had permission to use the castle, whether the Perry defendants owed and breached a duty of care, whether inadequate supervision and the mixing of children of different sizes caused the injury, and whether the claimant’s father was partly responsible. An allegation concerning the relevance of the claimant’s Asperger’s syndrome was withdrawn during the trial.

1. Permission. The evidence established, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Perry gave the claimant permission to use the bouncy castle. The claimant therefore fell within the scope of the duty of care accepted by the Perry defendants.
2. Supervision. The supervision was inadequate. Mrs Perry had to supervise both the bouncy castle and the bungee run, each of which required uninterrupted attention. Monitoring the bungee run could require her to assist users and face away from the castle. The standard of supervision had to be especially careful because the children were too young to appreciate the significant risks.
3. Causation. The failure to maintain a continuous watch was causative. The sequence of somersaults occurred quickly, but an effective warning or intervention could probably have prevented the final somersault. The defendants were not required, on the evidence, to give every user a specific warning or install a notice prohibiting somersaults.
4. Relative size. The marked disparity between the older, much larger boy and the younger children materially increased the risk of a damaging collision. The safety recommendations consistently stressed the avoidance of mixing children of different sizes. The larger boy should not have been allowed to use the castle at the same time as the smaller children, and that breach was also causative.
5. Claim against the claimant’s father. The allegation that the claimant’s Asperger’s syndrome required special precautions was withdrawn and, in any event, added nothing. The father had not prohibited the claimant from seeking permission to use the castle. His perception that the equipment appeared properly monitored, and that the claimant could approach the supervising adult, was reasonable. The claim against him, both as defendant and as third party, failed.

Judgment was therefore for the claimant against the Perry defendants. The claim against the claimant’s father failed.