Menu
CASE STUDY.
Lawyers involved in the project:
A bouncy castle was displayed at a picnic held on the grounds of the K. Elementary School. The facility's rules indicated, among other things, that children could play on the castle under the supervision of an adult guardian, and that a maximum of 7 children could be on the facility at a time. A group from the first grade decided to take advantage of the attraction while their guardians sat in the distance, spending time on their own. While playing, Antosia L. got into an argument with Krzysio Z. and decided to push Krzysio off a height. As a result of the fall, Krzysio fractured his leg with multiple fractures, which resulted in surgical supplies, a cast and long-term rehabilitation. The experts appointed in the case ruled 10% damage to health.
Christopher's parents decided to bring an action jointly and severally against the school and the owner of the castle - they demanded payment of compensation and medical expenses. The insurers joined the case as collateral interveners. The insurer's attorney indicated, among other things, that Antosia L.'s parents were responsible for the damage under Article 427 of the Civil Code.
The court agreed with the attorney's argument, justifying its position with the circumstances of the case - in the court's opinion, the facility's rules and regulations explicitly indicate that play required supervision of the child's guardian, and hence no responsibility can be attributed to the owner of the facility. The parents not only failed to supervise the children on the subject of their behavior, but also failed to admonish the children when almost the entire class entered the facility. Also, the school is not liable, since the picnic was organized on its premises, but nevertheless outside its opening hours and without the presence of teaching staff. Consequently, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
