I think it fairly obvious that these cases are brought simply to reach
the insurance. That, however, ought not to be a bar to such claims in
principle. The ordinary rules of liability/duty should apply in the
familial context as in any other and islands where there is "no duty"
ought not to be carved out simply because one person is the parent or
sibling of another - if that is to be relevant, very cogent reasons
would be required.

Indeed, claims by children against a parent following a road accident
are good examples of cases in which such claims are relatively common,
are pursued to get at the insurance and (to the extent the damages
lotary that makes up the common law system for the compensation of
personal injuries is justifiable at all) are clearly justified.

In an Irish context, the obvious example of such a case succeeding is
the old and perhaps dubious decision of the majority of a three judge
Supreme Court in Moynihan v Moynihan [1976], a decision described
(from memory) as absurd by the HCA in Scott v Davis but which I at
least think was well reasoned and right, on the facts apparently found
by the jury.

Kind regards

Ger

On 3/12/18, Claire McIvor (Birmingham Law School) <C.McIvor@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> An obvious analogy would be Perry v Harris - the Court of Appeal intervened
> at lightening speed and overruled the decision on breach grounds.
> Traditionally the courts are opposed to the whole idea of parental
> liability.
>
> On the insurance point made by Andrew, might it be the case that the public
> liability element contain in most home insurance could be triggered? Dunnage
> v Randall comes to mind.
>
> Claire
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 12 Mar 2018, at 13:00, Andrew Tettenborn
> <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk<mailto:a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>
> Some of the most interesting tort cases are at bottom factual
> determinations, but none the less important for that. Does anyone share my
> misgivings at Whipple J's determination today on appeal that a parent who
> holds a child's birthday party at a crazy golf course should find herself
> personally liable to a child hit in the eye by a golf club because she
> didn't specifically instruct her child not to swing? Seems to me that it
> adds new terrors to parenthood, especially uninsured parenthood.
>
> See The Bosworth Water Trust v SSR & Ors [2018] EWHC 444
> (QB)<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/444.html>
>
> Andrew
> --
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Tettenborn
> Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University
>
> Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
> School of Law, University of Swansea
> Richard Price Building
> Singleton Park
> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
> Cellphone 07472-708527 / (int) +44-7472-708527
> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>
>
> Andrew Tettenborn
> Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe
>
> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
> Adeilad Richard Price
> Parc Singleton
> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
> Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
> Ffôn symudol 07472-708527 / (rhyngwladol) +44-7472-708527
> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>
>
>
>
> <ISTL.png><http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst<https://twitter.com/swansea_dst>
> Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com<https://iistl.wordpress.com/>
> Read Andrew's other writing
> here<https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/author/andrewtetterborn/> and here
> <http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/search_results/e33f8465aa58ebce86f46f4faed6a554/>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the
> intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or
> copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system.
> Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or
> other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly
> prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>