This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/kent/7534645.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Bouncy castle ruling overturned Bouncy castle ruling overturned
(20 minutes later)
A couple found liable for an accident on a bouncy castle that left a boy with brain damage have won their appeal.A couple found liable for an accident on a bouncy castle that left a boy with brain damage have won their appeal.
Sam Harris, now 13, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, suffered a broken skull when a 15-year-old boy kicked his head at a party in Strood, Kent, in 2005.Sam Harris, now 13, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, suffered a broken skull when a 15-year-old boy kicked his head at a party in Strood, Kent, in 2005.
In May, a judge ruled that Timothy and Catherine Perry, of Jersey Road, had not provided enough supervision for the party on a field behind their home.In May, a judge ruled that Timothy and Catherine Perry, of Jersey Road, had not provided enough supervision for the party on a field behind their home.
But three Appeal Court judges ruled on Thursday it was a freak accident.But three Appeal Court judges ruled on Thursday it was a freak accident.
Lawyers for Mr and Mrs Perry had argued they had acted no differently from "parents up and down the land".Lawyers for Mr and Mrs Perry had argued they had acted no differently from "parents up and down the land".
The couple were found liable for damages, estimated at more than £1m, for Sam, who now needs round-the-clock care.The couple were found liable for damages, estimated at more than £1m, for Sam, who now needs round-the-clock care.
It is impossible to preclude all risk that, when playing together, children may injure themselves or each other Lord Phillips
The accident happened during the seconds that Mrs Perry had gone to help a child on bungee run inflatable, also hired for their triplets' 10th birthday party.The accident happened during the seconds that Mrs Perry had gone to help a child on bungee run inflatable, also hired for their triplets' 10th birthday party.
The appeal judges said that Mrs Perry could not be held at fault for the "freak and tragic accident".The appeal judges said that Mrs Perry could not be held at fault for the "freak and tragic accident".
"The manner in which she was supervising activities on the bouncy castle and the bungee run accorded with the demands of reasonable care for the children using them," said Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips."The manner in which she was supervising activities on the bouncy castle and the bungee run accorded with the demands of reasonable care for the children using them," said Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips.
Sam brought the case to court through his mother, Janet Harris
Sam brought the case against the Perrys through his mother Janet Harris, of Long Lane, Gedney Hill.Sam brought the case against the Perrys through his mother Janet Harris, of Long Lane, Gedney Hill.
He was 11 when a much taller and heavier boy, Samuel Pring, caught the left side of his head with a heel.He was 11 when a much taller and heavier boy, Samuel Pring, caught the left side of his head with a heel.
Lord Phillips said that children played alone or with others in a wide variety of circumstances.Lord Phillips said that children played alone or with others in a wide variety of circumstances.
Sam brought the case to court through his mother, Janet Harris
"It is impossible to preclude all risk that, when playing together, children may injure themselves or each other, and minor injuries must be commonplace," he said."It is impossible to preclude all risk that, when playing together, children may injure themselves or each other, and minor injuries must be commonplace," he said.
"It is quite impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so.""It is quite impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so."
Lord Phillips said Sam's injury was of "horrifying severity" but could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Mrs Perry had acted reasonably in thinking she could supervise both inflatables at the same time.
The judges awarded costs against Sam and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
But they "stayed" costs pending any future application to appeal to the Lords.