Harris v Perry & Ors

Harris v Perry & Ors

The Perry's owed a duty of care to the claimant as they permitted him to use the bouncy castle. They breached this duty by failing to provide adequate supervision and by allowing a much larger child to use the equipment at the same time, both of which were causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the claimant's father failed as he acted reasonably and did not breach any duty.

Parties
Claimant: Samuel David Harris (a Minor 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
Civil Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against first and second defendants (the Perry's) succeeds; claim and third party claim against third defendant (the claimant's father) dismissed.
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 suing by his Mother and Litigation Friend, Janet Harris)

Claimant

Timothy Perry

First Defendant

Catherine Perry

Second Defendant

David Harris

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed and breached a duty of care to the claimant in relation to supervision and safety on 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 claimant's father was contributorily negligent or owed a duty to prevent the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The Perry's owed a duty of care to the claimant as they permitted him to use the bouncy castle. They breached this duty by failing to provide adequate supervision and by allowing a much larger child to use the equipment at the same time, both of which were causative of the claimant's injury. The claim against the claimant's father failed as he acted reasonably and did not breach any duty.

Court Disposition

Claim against first and second defendants (the Perry's) succeeds; claim and third party claim against third defendant (the claimant's father) dismissed.

Orders

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