
Originally Posted by
Saracen
The question is ... is there blame?
As I understand it, the issue would be proving negligence, which would require a breach of a duty of care. Could an employer setting up a bouncy castle realistically anticipate the injury that resulted, and if so, did they take steps to avoid it? Was the injury merely the result of an unpredictable accident, etc. Oh, and without wishing to seem harsh on Gerrard (for whom I have great sympathy), did he accept a risk of accident by going on the castle?
For instance, if a risk of injury is reasonably predictably when you do something, you weaken your case considerably if you voluntarily do it. An example .... you end up with a broken leg as a result of a football tackle that went wrong. Sports like football, let alone rugby or motorbike racing, have an inherent element if risk. Arguably, horsing around on a bouncy castle does too. If you don't want to be tackled, with the risk that it might go wrong and you get hurt, don't play football.
Like Gerrard said, you don't expect to get someone kneeling on your chest, but in this type of mucking about, with or without bouncy castle, it's a possibility.
And, of course, if we all take the attitude that we sue an employer that lays on a bouncy castle, all that'll happen is that the health and safety culture will do a risk assessment and decide that bouncy castles are hazardous and, to avoid the possibility of getting sued, will no longer be permitted.
Is there clear negligence? If not, is there any actual blame, or is it just an accident?