On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:26:02 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:
>No, nor would I. In theory a bouncy castle is the ideal thing for a
>children's party and, in the imagination of a naive parent, the risks of
>injury (or at any rate, of severe injury) are so remote that they aren't
>worth thinking about.
>
>Yet those who are in the bouncy castle business know that people regularly
>sustain severe injury if for instance the castle is under or over inflated,
>or if there is an inappropriate mix of ages, or if some people are too
>uninhibited in their play.
The interesting thing here is who is going to pay the damages. If I
hired a bouncy castle for a party, the last thing on my mind would be
third party insurance and I doubt if the hirers have insurance cover.
So, is it a hollow victory for the kid who got injured.
--
Alasdair. |