Alasdair wrote:
> 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.
household public liability, presumably?
|