A TEENAGER left brain-damaged after he was kicked on a bouncy castle has won damages likely to be more than £1 million from the couple who hired it for their children's birthday party.
Sam Harris, then 11, was hurt when a taller and heavier 15-year-old caught the left side of his head with his heel while they were somersaulting on the castle in September 2005.
He suffered a skull fracture resulting in a "very serious and trauma
tic brain injury" and now needs round-the-clock supervision, a court heard yesterday.
The amount of damages, which is likely to exceed £1 million, will be assessed at a later stage if not agreed.
Sam, who brought the case through his mother, Janet, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, claimed Catherine and Timothy Perry, who hired the castle for their triplets' tenth birthday party, were to blame for the accident.
It happened on the playing fields behind their home in Rochester, Kent.
But the Perrys denied liability and blamed Sam's father, David, who was brought into the proceedings as a third defendant, for his alleged lack of supervision.
Mr Justice David Steel, at the High Court in London, ruled the Perrys, who were insured, were liable and dismissed the claim against Mr Harris.
He said that he found it probable that Mrs Perry let Sam use the castle and the level of supervision was inadequate.
The accident was caused by a lack of supervision and by an older boy being allowed to use the castle at the same time as the younger, smaller children.
The judge gave the Perrys permission to appeal because of the ruling's "potential significance", to the couple and to others.
He said if the appeal was not pursued, Sam should receive an interim payment of £100,000.
After the hearing, Mr and Mrs Harris said in a statement that their sole motivation was to get damages for their son.
"We are both very relieved that the court has found that Mr and Mrs Perry were negligent as this will now enable us to obtain the specialist support and treatment that Sam needs," they said.
"While we never wanted the case to conclude at trial, we are pleased that this has provided an opportunity to highlight just how dangerous bouncy castles can be if they are not supervised properly.
"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."
They stressed Sam's mother had not instigated a case against his father, but the Perrys had made the claim against Mr Harris, and Mrs Harris was advised by her lawyers he should be made a joint defendant.
"The injury that Sam has suffered has and will continue to have a profound effect upon his life," they added. "The damages he will receive will hopefully help to improve his quality of life and we hope that the publicity that this case has received will help to prevent other children and families suffering as Sam and his family have."
perils of having a partyUNDER the hire contract, the bouncy castle had to be supervised at all times – but Mrs Perry had her back to it and was strapping a child into a bungee run at the time of the accident.
Sam's lawyers said his father – who was tidying up after a football session – said he could not use the castle because it was part of a private party. However, they said, Sam was given permission by Mrs Perry – which was fine with his father.
Mrs Perry said she turned away from the bungee run and saw Sam running in her direction. Although he did not ask, she told him not to go on the bouncy castle.
The judge said the difficulty was that Mrs Perry had to supervise the use of two pieces of equipment at the same time – both of which needed uninterrupted supervision.
The full article contains 685 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
