The tragic story of thirteen year old Sam Harris who was left with serious injury after an accident on a bouncy castle at a friend’s birthday party is something sure to make any parent pause for thought.  Growing up I never really gave the act of going to a friend’s house much thought, except of course to the extent that I was excited by the prospect of what we’d get up to. 

But unspoken or not the decision of my parents to allow me to stay at X or Y’s house cannot have been a light one.  In agreeing to let me stay at a friends house they were placing their trust in me to act sensibly and perhaps more importantly in my friends’ parents to act with due diligence in the discharge of their quasi-parental role. 

When I think of some of the things I used to get up to (like jumping from the garden fence to my best friend’s roof) it’s amazing none of us ever ended up with a serious injury or worse.  But what if we had been injured, what if I’d slip and fallen 15 foot onto the concrete floor?  Would my parents have sued my best friend’s parents?  Would they have been right to sue them? 

I honestly don’t believe for a second they would have sued, but more importantly I don’t think they would have been right to sue.  There’s a clear difference between actively placing an individual in danger and being negligent as to an individual’s safety.  But when children become involved though what parent can honestly say they’ve provided sufficient supervision to their children at all times?  And what is sufficient supervision exactly? 

The parents of Sam Harris have suffered and continue to suffer from a tragedy no person would wish upon a parent.  But children are children and accidents sadly do happen.  Sadly a ruling such as that which awarded £1m to Sam’s parents will only serve to further embed the idea that when it comes to activities for children the potential for liability should be avoided at all costs.  The effect of this idea can already be seen in the decline in school trips and the lack of people volunteering to be Scout leaders etc, but with this new ruling we can add to the mix a decline in the number of parents willing to host birthday parties and, to take it to its logical conclusion, a decline in the number of parents willing to have other people’s children over on a Saturday afternoon. 

In attempting to protect children the State has in this decision failed utterly to consider the potential knock-on effects of its decision.  One can only hope the case goes to appeal and that reason will prevail.