"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news:68haicF2ru4i9U1@mid.individual.net...
> 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?
Must be. No personal injury solicitor ever pursues an action without first
ensuring that there is a paying party who has the funds to meet a judgment.
|