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 and breached a duty of care to the claimant by failing to provide adequate supervision and by allowing children of significantly different sizes to use the bouncy castle together; these breaches were causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the third defendant failed as he acted reasonably and had no duty to supervise the bouncy castle, which was under the Perry's control.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 990 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel David Harris (a Minor and a Patient suing by his Mother and Litigation Friend, Janet Harris); First Defendant: Timothy Perry; Second Defendant: Catherine Perry; Third Defendant: David Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim (personal Injury) / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against first and second defendants (the Perry's) succeeds; claim against third defendant (David Harris) fails.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Causation, Parental Responsibility
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Causation Parental Responsibility

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel David Harris (a Minor and a Patient suing by his Mother and Litigation Friend, Janet Harris)

Claimant

Timothy Perry

First Defendant

Catherine Perry

Second Defendant

David Harris

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim (personal Injury) / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second defendants owed and breached a duty of care to the claimant in relation to supervision and safety of the bouncy castle
  2. 2 Whether the lack of supervision and mixing of children of different sizes was causative of the claimant's injury
  3. 3 Whether the third defendant (claimant's father) was negligent in failing to prevent or supervise the claimant's use of the bouncy castle

Ratio Decidendi

The Perry's owed and breached a duty of care to the claimant by failing to provide adequate supervision and by allowing children of significantly different sizes to use the bouncy castle together; these breaches were causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the third defendant failed as he acted reasonably and had no duty to supervise the bouncy castle, which was under the Perry's control.

Court Disposition

Claim against first and second defendants (the Perry's) succeeds; claim against third defendant (David Harris) fails.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the first and second defendants.
  • Claim against the third defendant dismissed.