The High Court dismissed a negligence claim brought on behalf of a young child who fractured his left femur after jumping from a low divider at Bumblebees, a children’s play centre. The judge found that the claim had not established fault by the centre’s operator.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kevin Cross on 5 February 2013, said the child was at Bumblebees on 28 October 2008 with his grandmother, Mrs Breslin, who was caring for him. He climbed onto a foam-brick divider in the toddler area and jumped about 12 inches onto a safety mat, injuring his leg.
The claim alleged negligence in the layout of the premises and a failure to provide adequate supervision or intervene to prevent the accident. The plaintiff argued that children should have been able to move between play areas without climbing over the dividers, and that staff should have prevented children moving between areas or removed balls that escaped from the ball pool. The defendant’s counsel relied on authorities concerning supervision in children’s play areas.
The judge said Bumblebees was a play area, not a crèche, and that children remained primarily under their guardians’ immediate supervision. He found that a notice at the entrance requiring parental or guardian supervision was reasonably prominent. The judgment also recorded that two staff members were present, although neither appeared in the CCTV footage.
The court could not determine why the child fractured his femur. The judge said he may have fallen awkwardly or possibly landed on balls that had escaped from the pool, but there was no direct evidence that balls were involved. He distinguished the accident from other suggested risks: the child was not hurt in the older children’s area, by older children in the toddler area, or in a fall onto the harder floor. He landed on a mat.
The judge concluded there was no danger on the premises relevant to the accident and described the play area as generally safe and well run. He said accidents involving young children cannot all be prevented. Although the injury was significant, the child had made a good recovery. The court dismissed the case because the plaintiff had not established fault on the defendant’s part.