Judge bans brain-damaged boy from suing over bouncy castle accident

Timothy and Catherine Perry were held responsible for the accident in which 13-year-old Sam Harris was kicked in the head by an older teenager.

But yesterday the country's top judge overturned a High Court ruling in May that the couple had not paid close enough attention to the children's party.

Tragic: Sam Harris's mother Janet (right) was hoping for £1million in damages but the Court of Appeal ruled Timothy and Catherine Perry (left) were not to blame

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, sitting with Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Wilson at the Court of Appeal, overruled Mr Justice Steel's decision by declaring that it was a 'freak and tragic accident'.

Legal experts hailed the decision a victory for those supervising bouncy castles who had been left open to compensation claims by parents over even minor accidents.

The accident happened at a tenth birthday party the Perrys were holding for their triplets in a playing field in Strood, near Rochester, Kent, in September 2005.

Sam Harris, then aged 11, asked Mrs Perry if he and another boy, Sammy Pring, 15, could have a go.

The Perrys had also hired a bungee run and while Mrs Perry had her back turned, Sammy accidentally kicked Sam in the head when performing a somersault.

Sam suffered a 'very serious and traumatic brain injury', and now needs round-the-clock care.

His parents, Janet and David Harris, who are separated, sued the Perrys.

Accident: Sam was kicked in the head by an older child (file picture)

The High Court ruled that Mr and Mrs Perry should pay an immediate £100,000 to the Harris family and were liable to pay up to as much as £1million more in damages.

But yesterday the High Court ruling was overturned.

Sam will not receive any compensation and his parents are expected to take their case to the House of Lords.

Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in civil law, said: 'This appeal simply marks common sense.

'It is a tragic accident and one obviously feels sorry for the boy and his parents but I am not at all surprised at the outcome.'

During the appeal hearing, Lord Phillips said Mrs Perry was under no obligation to keep the bouncy castle under continuous observation, and it was not 'foreseeable' that it posed a 'significant risk of harm'.

He added that Mrs Perry had acted 'reasonably' in believing she could supervise the castle and the bungee run at the same time.