In this case insurance is paying for the problem. I wonder what would have happened if the "guilty" party did not have insurance. Perhaps the winning family would have got the "guilty" party's house and consigned their children to a worse future. Where does justice live.

Richard Hollamby, Dundas, Australia

I organised a party for my 10 year old's birthday where the whole class was invited & some 13 year old siblings. I was asked by parents whether the bouncy castle was going to be supervised at all times and I refused to guarantee that, knowing it was a large garden and that there were only 2 adults.

Veronique Marot, Leeds, GB

As a broker who offers cover for operators, I would like to point out that there is usually a requirement that people are made aware that children under 12 should not go on castles at the same time as children over 12 - due to the extra boisterous nature and physical size of the older child.

John Wood, Hull, UK

Assume the parents hosting this party were council tennants and had no household insurance (millions in the UK still don't) how far would this case have proceeded then?
Yet another litigation brought on the basis that someone has the ability to pay!

Scott, Felixstowe,

Waivers waivers everywhere!
All parents have to do is put up signs in the entrance and around the garden saying that everyone is there at their own risk, like they do for our cars in car parks. The blame culture is getting too much but it wil sort itself out eventually... I think!

Alex, Manchester, UK

There's only one winner in this,the government!
The NHS won't have to pay for specialist care, ins policies go up for so they gain on ins premium tax,cost of hire goes up,more tax paid by hire company.
The litigation epidemic is just a revenue raiser for the government so they'll never curtail it

N Morgan, Stockport, UK

Funny, isn't it, how someone can always be found to blame for every accident or injury? Except, that is, when it is the government or its employees who did the damage. Then, mysteriously, no one is to blame. As with Jean-Charles de Menezes - shot 7 times, with no crime. Or people wrongly convicted.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

I think the ridiculousness of whole situation overwhelms any logical approach from a legal perspective. Law is surely there to balance justice and fairness. There is no balance in this and blame and breach of duty are near synonymous. Will there now be training and certification on B castles?

James Cullup, Oxford,

Does no one think it was the teenager's dad's responsibility to be keeping an eye on him, not the mum running her 10 year olds birthday party. Even more so because he was bigger than the other children, and known to be clumsy and less aware of social / emotional space because of his autism.

Carolyn, Bath, England

Wave bye bye to common sense. In London, pretty much every working day sees someone walking into me. As I am also walking, it isn't their fault anymore than it is mine. Sadly however, they don't understand this and blame me each and every time. People don't see their fault only someone elses'.

Becky , London, UK

I think many of you misunderstand the way that the tort of negligence works. It isn't about it "being somebody's fault", but about who should cover the cost of the damage *when a duty was breached*. Considering the serious nature of the damage here, this doesn't seem unusual or excessive.

Marshall, Cambridge, UK

A tragic and very unfortunate accident (for that is what it is) Why were the bouncy castle parents anymore to blame than the parents of the child who was injured? They allowed him to go knowing there was a bouncy castle and knowing he would use it.

Matthew, Sussex,

Excellent article, thank you.

Tom, London,

Surely what will happen is a separate insurance premium will be payable when hiring a 'bouncy castle'. I pay a yearly golf insurance just in case my golf ball hits anyone on the head...and how unlikely is that. An insurance premium is not the end of the world and it hasnt stopped me playing golf.

Stuart, sheffield, uk

Har har
Very well said!

This and health and safety all exist to create a people that have no common sense and no sense of responsibilty for your own person. The law and state ensures your existence and everything thereof.

Elizabeth, Edinburgh,

Judges want those who have suffered injury to get compensation, so they bend the rules. "To do a great right, do a little wrong." It's judicial anarchy.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Stephen, regardless of age, this was a civil litigation not a crown prosecution - the assertion that parents ought to have reasonably forseen harm may result from..a bouncy castle? Merits of the argument aside it's parent v parent not state v parent. Maybe kids should sue each other after playtime

Scott, Glasgow,

Accident Compensation Corporation in NZ was set up by govt to assist accident victims on a 'no fault' basis without involving the courts. While it has its downsides it is generally fair & assists all accident (including medical misadventure) victims, It is financed by levies on all employers.

Kiwi Expat, London, Middlesex

I own a Bouncy Castle hire company and I really do think this is society gone mad. I am deeply concerned this case will effect my trade because of the way is has been published. My operators always explain the risks to the "hirer" but at the end of the day common sence is needed, kids & adults!

Steven, Chorley, UK

The children were over the age of criminal responsibility and old enough for secondary school (i.e. "young adults" as the educators like to call them). Why is the parent responsible? I can't decide who is further from reality, the judge or the parents that brought the case.

KR, Stockport,

Ian Blockley, if you had read the original articles you would also know that the boy's father gave him permission to go on the castle, and that the boy also suffered a form of autism that, amongst other things, impairs motor skills. I would say blaming others for this accident is a bit much.

Paul Reid, Stoke on Trent, UK

It is the parents depositing the childred at a party to assess the risks of injury in which the child is placed. It is widely known that bouncy castles attract wild behaviour, but there is risk that although supervised childred do not obey rules.

Best to insure own childred than sue others.

Goldfinger, Gloucester, UK

The decision I think is wrong. However, the real problem is that Sam needs care and any SEN child has to fight for help. We either need universal personal injury insurance or a state run no fault compensation scheme like they've had in New Zealand for years. Then we can all enjoy parties again.

Helen, Fleet, UK

Mick, if you had read the one the original articles you would have learnt that the 15yr old had his shoes on. Ever seen someone allowed onto a bouncey castle with shoes, no I thought not.

Ian Blockley, Doha, Qatar

Liability insurance covers, well, negligence liability. It is not excluded. If the hosts had not been able to call on their insurance to cover this event, their premium would have been wasted which would have been a windfall for the insurers.

Edward, HK, HK

I imagine bouncy castle providers will simply provide cheap insurance to cover this type of thing to stay in business and we can all continue to provide a bit of fun for the kids.

Steve Bush, Cirencester, UK

Well stated Mr Hume. I often visit regional centres in the Philippines and the same mentality of finding someone to blame for all unpleasant events is as endemic as the vast array of superstitious beliefs. The process of apportioning blame similarly involves a path of tortuous 'logic'.

Stephen, Sydney, Australia

Health & Safety, brother. More safety, less health, it can be argued in this case.

Ian cheese, london, uk

At a party last year, I was left to babysit the 6 young children whilst their parents enjoyed a well-deserved drink. The natural thing to do was accompany them onto the bouncy castle to keep them occupied... I can only begin to imagine the negligence claims I could have unwittingly initiated.

Kelly, Brighton, UK

The implications ripple outwards. All parents I know will no longer be hiring bouncy castles, and are reconsidering activities involving other people's children where there is a risk of injury.

How long before all birthday parties require parents to remain to supervise their children? No more fun

Nik, Kent,

People commenting negtatively regarding Sam's parents should be aware that Sam suffered brain damage which will render him in need of constant care and attention into his adult years, and to provide which Sam's mum has had to leave her job. Hence why they need money - the state won't or can't help.

LJ, Manchester,

There does not seem to be any "blame" here but it compounds the tragedy if the cost of giving Sam as normal a life as possible is not met. But a lottery win is not how this should be done. Bills should be met as needed but a huge sum to be a windfall one day for someone "in Australia" is wrong.

D.L. Stephens, York, England

Such a sad situation for Sam and his parents. But thank you, Mick, for your balance and common sense.

Sue B, Pontypridd, Wales

They did what was right for their child, who on any reading has a grim future. Would their critics not do the same for theirs? The Judge heard evidence lasting some days and decided "on the balance of probabilities." Would you have a 6 y.o play rugby with a 15 y.o? Of course not.

Corinne, Colchester,

This outcome is good - it ensures the parents receive the money they need for their child's ongoing care.

This isn't greed, it's pragmatism, as the only way of obtaining the much-needed insurance money is by suing. That's how insurance works, whether it's a car accident or public liability claim.

Maria, Leeds,

Actually, we can blame Sam's parents for taking advantage of the blame culture. Such greedy, short-sighted opportunism is precisely the reason why we can no longer give our children the childhood we enjoyed. Shame on you! You have gained some money and made childrens' lives greyer.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, new Zealand

The problem is that it is a fine line between normal behaviour and negligence. If people are hurt due to negligence then responsibility must be taken for it.
Writing a law to cover this is impossible - which is what judges were supposed to be for, to judge responsibility and apportion punishment.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

I am waiting for someone to fall down and injure themselves in a court, and sue the Judge for negligence! It cannot be said that he is not fully in charge, and therefore any incident must be his fault absoloutely.

David, Belfast, UK

Mick Hume is quite correct, this is another example of the modern disease of blame culture that will further prevent children being taken out of their cotton-wool cocoons to have a normal, albeit risky, adventurous chldhood.

Patricia Thornton, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria

Laurence - this not the best outcome. There will be exclusions from insurance policies. Hiring these castles will become effective impossibiity. The original event was a tragedy - this ruling compounds it by diminishing the lives of everyone with children. The parents had done nothing wrong.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

Isn't this the best possible outcome to a tragic event? The parents of the poor child who got injured are given money which presumably will help support him. The money comes from an insurer, which is why people take out insurance. Insurance premiums go up a little bit - so society pays. Ideal, no?

Laurence Davison, Sydney, Australia