Harris v Perry & Ors [2008] EWHC 990 (QB) (08 May 2008)

Harris v Perry & Ors [2008] EWHC 990 (QB) (08 May 2008)

The Perry's owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached it by failing to provide adequate supervision and allowing a much larger child to use the bouncy castle with smaller children, and this breach was causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the third defendant fails as he acted reasonably and was not negligent.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 990
Parties
Claimant: Samuel David Harris; First Defendant: Timothy Perry; Second Defendant: Catherine Perry; Third Defendant: David Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against first and second defendants succeeds; claim against third defendant fails.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Supervision of Children, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Supervision of Children Causation Contributory Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel David Harris

Claimant

Timothy Perry

First Defendant

Catherine Perry

Second Defendant

David Harris

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached the duty of care by inadequate supervision and allowing mixed sizes on the bouncy castle
  3. 3 Whether the breach was causative of the injury

Ratio Decidendi

The Perry's owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached it by failing to provide adequate supervision and allowing a much larger child to use the bouncy castle with smaller children, and this breach was causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the third defendant fails as he acted reasonably and was not negligent.

Court Disposition

Claim against first and second defendants succeeds; claim against third defendant fails.

Orders

  • First and second defendants liable for claimant's injuries.
  • Claim against third defendant dismissed.