Rachel Johnson comments on the Bouncy castle case.
Extract: "No, I thought Rospa was in the game of encouraging people to take reasonable steps to prevent accidents, not egging them on to sue anyone they can. I thought that judges these days were supposed to take the principles behind the Compensation Act 2006 into account, an act that emphasised that some activities were desirable despite being risky. The judge in the bouncy castle case last week appears to be taking the duty of care principle to a ludicrous extreme that will place an impossible burden on every householder. Perhaps this is why the judge gave leave to appeal.
I thought we were supposed to be encouraging our kids to take more risks – as Ed Balls, the minister for children, has himself bewailed as he launched a kindred campaign against “compensation culture” and “cotton-wool kids”.
Yet now we have the bouncy castle case and a ruling that – if left unappealed – will mean that anybody who ever invites a guest into their house, child or adult, opens not just their homes to friends but themselves to lawsuits.
Moreover, it will give schools further reason to abstain from doing fun stuff off campus, will inhibit adults from spontaneous socialising (unless insured to the hilt) and, above all, will remove the onus on people to behave sensibly and accept responsibility and instead place it on finding someone – anyone – to blame when things go wrong."