Child Injury Claims in Public Places in Ireland

A child injury claim in a public place in Ireland arises when a child under 18 is hurt because a premises occupier failed in their duty of care. The child cannot bring the claim independently. The parent instructs the solicitor, the solicitor submits the claim to the IRB, and the judge approves the final settlement. A parent or legal guardian acts as the "next friend" throughout the process. All claims (except medical negligence) must first be assessed by the Injuries Resolution Board¹ (IRB, formerly PIAB). Every settlement involving a child must then be approved by a judge in what is called an infant ruling. The compensation is held by the Courts Service until the child turns 18.

This guide is general legal information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts. In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.

Based in Dublin, serving clients nationwide across Ireland for all personal injury claims. No in-person meetings needed.

Contents

Governing law: Occupiers' Liability Act 1995², amended by Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023³

Who claims: Parent or guardian as "next friend." A child under 18 cannot bring a claim independently.

Time limit: Two-year limitation period does not begin until the child turns 18. Claim must be filed before the child's 20th birthday.

Court approval: All child settlements require approval by a judge. Compensation is held until the child turns 18.

IRB fee: €45 online / €90 postal. All public liability claims (except medical negligence) must go through the IRB first.

Jurisdiction: Ireland only. Irish law applies. This page does not cover UK or Northern Ireland rules.

Can I claim if my child was injured in a public place?

Yes, under Irish law, if your child was hurt in a shop, hotel, restaurant, playground, swimming pool, car park, event venue, or any other premises open to the public, and the injury resulted from the occupier's failure to keep the premises reasonably safe, you can bring a public liability claim on your child's behalf. An occupier owes a duty of care to every visitor. The occupier of any premises open to the public owes a duty of care to all visitors under Section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995². That duty requires the occupier to take reasonable care to ensure visitors do not suffer injury because of any danger on the premises.

A child visiting a shop with a parent is a lawful visitor. The same applies to a child in a hotel, a restaurant, a leisure centre, or a public park. The occupier owes that child the full common duty of care.

Why children receive stronger legal protection as visitors

According to Section 3(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995², the duty of care an occupier owes to visitors in Ireland is not a fixed standard. It adjusts based on the circumstances of the visitor. Section 3(2) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 requires the occupier to consider "the care which a visitor may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety." For an adult, courts expect a reasonable degree of self-awareness. A shopper who ignores a clearly visible "caution: wet floor" sign may have their claim reduced.

For a young child, that expectation drops close to zero. A four-year-old in a supermarket cannot read warning signs, cannot assess whether a surface is wet, and cannot judge whether a display is stable. An occupier who opens premises to the public must foresee that children will be present and that children will behave as children do. Premises that are reasonably safe for an attentive adult may be dangerous for a child.

This is one of the most important principles in child public liability law. The occupier's duty is heightened, not because the law imposes a special category, but because the same statutory test produces a higher standard when applied to a visitor who lacks the capacity for self-protection. Occupiers of shops, hotels, restaurants, and other commercial premises where families are welcomed must account for this reality in their safety planning, inspection systems, and hazard management.

The five-factor liability test and child visitors

Section 40 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 amended Section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 to require courts to consider five specific factors when deciding whether an occupier complied with the common duty of care. These five factors now structure the court's assessment of the existing "reasonable care" standard:

1. The probability of a danger existing on the premises. For children, hazards that an adult would notice and avoid, such as a wet floor or an unstable display, present a higher probability of danger because children are less likely to see them or understand their significance.

2. The probability of injury occurring. Children are physically smaller, less coordinated, and more likely to run, climb, or explore. The probability that a child will interact with a hazard is higher than for an adult.

3. The probable severity of any injury. Children's developing bodies are more vulnerable to certain injuries. A fall from the same height produces different consequences for a five-year-old than for an adult.

4. The cost and practicability of preventive measures. This factor can favour the occupier if the precaution required would be disproportionately expensive relative to the risk. However, in commercial premises that actively welcome families, the cost of basic child-safety measures (barriers around hazards, stable shelving, slip-resistant flooring) is rarely disproportionate.

5. The social utility of the activity giving rise to the risk. The court weighs whether the activity has genuine value. In Mulcahy v Cork City Council [2020] IEHC 547, the court found that the social value of natural features in a public park meant the council was not required to remove all conceivable play hazards. However, in a commercial retail or hospitality setting, the "activity" is simply trading. The social utility argument is weaker for a shop display that could fall on a child than for a natural feature in a public park.

When all five factors are applied to a child visitor in a commercial premises, the balance consistently favours a higher duty. The test was designed to protect occupiers from unreasonable claims, but its structured application to child visitors shows that the standard of care for children remains demanding under Irish law.

The Child Comprehension Shield: Section 5A and young visitors

According to the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023³ (Act No. 18), significant amendments were introduced to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995. One of the most important is the new Section 5A, which provides that an occupier does not owe a duty to a visitor "in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor, where the visitor is capable of comprehending the risks."

For adult visitors, this voluntary assumption of risk defence is a powerful tool for occupiers. An adult who climbs over a barrier or ignores a clear warning may be found to have accepted the risk. The 2023 amendment removed the previous requirement for a written agreement, allowing courts to assess acceptance based on conduct alone.

For young children in Ireland, the Child Comprehension Shield operates differently. A three-year-old who wanders toward an unfenced water feature, a five-year-old who touches a hot surface in a restaurant, or a seven-year-old who climbs a display in a shopping centre does not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend complex premises risks. The statutory language hinges entirely on "capable of comprehending." Because young children are not capable of comprehending most premises dangers, the Section 5A defence is functionally unavailable to occupiers in most child injury claims.

The Child Comprehension Shield creates a significant legal advantage for child claimants that did not exist before 2023. While the amendments strengthened occupier defences against adult visitors, they simultaneously codified the principle that children cannot be treated as having accepted risks they could not understand. No other Irish solicitor resource currently explains this distinction.

↑ Back to top

Where children get injured: venue-by-venue guide

Children can be injured in any public place in Ireland. The occupier controls the premises, the occupier owes the duty, and the occupier bears the liability if that duty is breached. The type of venue affects who is liable, what hazards are common, and what evidence matters most. Below is a guide to the public settings where child injuries most commonly arise.

Playgrounds and public parks

Defective equipment, inadequate impact-absorbing surfacing, entrapment gaps, and unsecured gates near roads are common hazards. Playground equipment in Ireland should meet the European safety standard IS EN 1176-1:2017 (+A1:2023), adopted as an Irish standard through the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI, 2023). This standard requires routine visual inspections, quarterly operational inspections, and annual independent inspections by an RPII-qualified inspector. EN 1177 sets the test method for impact-absorbing surfacing and critical fall height. Where a playground fails to meet these standards, that non-compliance is direct evidence of unsafe premises. The liable party is typically the local authority or private operator. For a detailed guide on playground-specific claims, see playground accident claims.

Irish case examples: a child who fell from monkey bars at Naas racecourse settled for €50,000 where the wood chip surfacing lacked sufficient depth (Harrison v Naas Race Company). A four-year-old who tripped on a protruding rubber mat in a Dublin City Council playground and sustained a forehead scar settled for €70,000.

Shopping centres and supermarkets

In Ireland, wet floors from spills or cleaning, falling stock from shelves, trolley-related injuries, escalator incidents, and automatic door injuries are the most frequent hazards for children in retail settings. Supermarkets and shopping centres are high-footfall commercial premises where families with young children are a core customer group. The occupier must anticipate that children will be present and that they will not exercise adult-level caution around displays, aisles, and equipment. The liable party may be the shopping centre management company, the individual retailer, or both, depending on where the accident occurred and who controlled the area. Children falling from shopping trolley seats is one of the most frequent child-specific hazards in supermarkets. Where the trolley seat mechanism is broken, the seatbelt is missing, or the trolley is defective, the supermarket is liable for failing to maintain its equipment in safe condition. See supermarket accident claims and shopping centre accident claims for detailed guidance.

A nine-year-old girl who slipped on a wet floor in a Tesco store and sustained a forehead laceration settled for €18,000 (Prendergast v Tesco). An eleven-year-old boy caught his leg on an exposed nail on a car park fence at a shopping centre and received €36,800 (Hogan v Colverton Limited).

Restaurants and cafes

In Irish restaurants and cafes, hot food and drink spills are a particular risk for children because tables and countertops place hot items at a child's head height. Wet floors, unstable high chairs, uneven flooring, and cramped layouts also contribute to child injuries in restaurant settings. The restaurant operator is the occupier and bears liability for premises safety. A five-year-old boy injured by a hot soup spill in a coffee shop received €41,000 in a settlement approved by the court. See restaurant accident claims.

Hotels and holiday accommodation

In Ireland, swimming pool surrounds, playground equipment on hotel grounds, unsecured bedroom furniture, balcony access, stairways, and spa areas are common hazard areas. Hotels are commercial premises that actively market to families, which means the occupier must foresee and plan for children using the facilities. The hotel operator is the liable party. A boy injured in a hotel skylight accident settled for €75,000. See hotel accident claims.

Trampoline parks and leisure centres

Mixed-age jumping zones where larger visitors share space with younger children, inadequate padding between trampolines, collision injuries, and landing injuries are common in trampoline parks. This is an area of growing litigation in Ireland. The Child Comprehension Shield is particularly relevant here: a young child jumping on a trampoline cannot comprehend the biomechanical risks of landing incorrectly or colliding with a larger jumper. Section 5A is unlikely to protect the operator against claims involving young children, even where parents signed a waiver or acknowledgement form. The operator of the facility is the liable party. See holiday park and leisure centre claims.

Swimming pools

Under Irish law, wet surfaces around pool edges, inadequate supervision ratios, unmarked depth transitions, and diving injuries are the primary hazards. Pool operators must maintain supervision proportionate to the age and ability of the users. Where a pool is open to families and children, the supervision standard is higher. The pool operator is the liable party. See swimming pool accident claims.

Creches and childcare facilities

In Ireland, falls from equipment, burns, unsupervised play, and choking hazards arise in creche settings. The Childcare Act 1991 and SI 221/2016 (Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016) set minimum safety, staffing, and inspection standards for early years services. Non-compliance with these regulations strengthens the argument that the creche breached its duty of care. For detailed creche-specific guidance, see creche accident claims.

Events, festivals, and visitor attractions

In Ireland, crowd movement, unsecured temporary structures, inflatable play equipment, and animal encounters create risks for children at events. The event organiser and the premises occupier may both be liable, depending on the control arrangements. A boy who fell from a tower in a Tayto Park playground settled for €25,000 (Bolger v Ashbourne Visitor Centre Ltd), where it was alleged the playground was overcrowded and the ground surfacing was insufficient.

Public footpaths and council-maintained areas

In Ireland, broken paving, potholes, missing kerb stones, and poor lighting on council footpaths can injure children as well as adults. The local authority is the occupier. The one-month notification requirement under Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004⁴ applies to all public liability claims against occupiers, including those involving children.

Who is liable when a child is injured?

Under Irish law, the occupier is the person or entity that controls the premises. Identifying the correct defendant is one of the first steps in any child injury claim.

Defendant identification by venue type

Venue	Typical defendant	Notes
Playground (public)	Local authority (city or county council)	Responsible for maintenance and inspection regime
Shopping centre (common areas)	Management company	Individual retailer may also be liable if hazard was within their unit
Supermarket	Supermarket operator	Occupier controls cleaning, stocking, and floor safety
Restaurant or cafe	Restaurant operator	Responsible for food handling, seating, and floor conditions
Hotel	Hotel operator	Controls all guest-accessible areas including pools and grounds
Trampoline park	Facility operator	Controls equipment, supervision ratios, and age separation
School	Board of Management	See dedicated school accident claims page
Creche	Creche operator	See dedicated creche accident claims page
Public footpath	Local authority	One-month notification requirement applies
Event or festival	Event organiser and/or premises occupier	Control arrangements determine which party bears primary liability

When a staff member's actions cause the injury

Under Irish law, if a child is injured by the actions of an employee, such as a shop assistant dropping heavy stock, a waiter spilling hot food, or a cleaner leaving a wet floor without a warning sign, the occupier is vicariously liable for the employee's conduct during the course of their employment. The claim is brought against the business, not the individual staff member. Parents sometimes hesitate because they do not want to cause trouble for a specific employee. The claim is against the employer's public liability insurer, and the individual employee is not personally affected.

When the injury is not caused by the state of the premises

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 in Ireland, a "danger" must be "due to the state of the premises" for the occupier's statutory duty to apply. If a child is injured by the actions of another person rather than by a premises defect, the OLA 1995 may not apply directly. For example, if another child pushes your child off play equipment, or another customer's runaway trolley strikes your child, the occupier is not automatically liable under the Act. In these situations, the claim may need to be framed through general negligence, arguing that the occupier failed to provide adequate supervision, security, or crowd management to prevent foreseeable harm. The distinction matters because the legal test is different. Your solicitor can assess which route applies to your child's specific circumstances.

Compensation is typically paid by the occupier's public liability insurer. The claim is against the occupier, not against any individual employee. At this point, the critical question becomes how a child's age affects the court's assessment of shared fault.

↑ Back to top

How does a child's age affect contributory negligence in Ireland?

In Ireland, contributory negligence under Section 34 of the Civil Liability Act 1961⁵ allows a court to reduce a claimant's compensation if they contributed to their own injury. For adults, the test is objective: would a reasonable person have acted differently?

For children, Irish courts apply the Age-Adjusted Negligence Threshold. The assessment is subjective, taking into account the specific child's age, development, and capacity to understand risk. The Law Reform Commission has endorsed this subjective approach, proposing that it should apply to all children under 16.

In practical terms, the Age-Adjusted Negligence Threshold works on a sliding scale:

How age affects contributory negligence assessment in Irish courts

Age range	Court's approach	Practical effect
Under 4	Child is considered incapable of contributory negligence	No reduction in compensation for the child's own actions
4 to 7	Contributory negligence is extremely rare and only in exceptional circumstances	Courts recognise very limited capacity for self-protection
7 to 12	Progressively assessed against what a child of that age and development could reasonably understand	Some reduction possible where the risk was obvious and the child old enough to appreciate it
13 to 17	Higher expectation of risk awareness, but still below the adult standard	Significant reduction possible. In the Bradley Hart case, a 13-year-old who climbed an unstable wall to retrieve a football had compensation reduced by 30%

The Age-Adjusted Negligence Threshold means that insurers cannot treat a child's actions by the same standard as an adult's. A six-year-old who runs on a wet corridor or a nine-year-old who climbs a display shelf is not exercising adult judgment, and the court will not assess them as if they were.

Where a parent was present and exercising supervision, the insurer may argue that the parent's supervision was inadequate. This argument shifts some responsibility to the accompanying adult but does not eliminate the occupier's liability for the hazard itself. Both the occupier's negligence and the parent's supervision are assessed independently.

Children with pre-existing conditions: the eggshell skull rule

Some children have pre-existing conditions that make them more vulnerable to injury. A child with brittle bone disease, a prior fracture that has not fully healed, or a bleeding disorder may suffer far more severe consequences from an accident that would cause only minor harm to another child. Under the eggshell skull rule, long established in Irish tort law and recently reaffirmed by the High Court in Higgins v Coleman (2025), the occupier must take their victim as they find them. If a child with a pre-existing vulnerability is injured due to the occupier's negligence, the occupier is liable for the full extent of the resulting harm, even if those consequences were not foreseeable. A pre-existing condition does not reduce the occupier's liability. It does not reduce the compensation.

Evidence challenges when the injured person is a child

According to the Data Protection Commission⁷, CCTV footage is personal data that must be provided on request within one calendar month. In Irish personal injury claims, when an adult is injured, they can describe what happened, what the hazard looked like, and what warnings were present. A young child often cannot. A three-year-old who slipped on a wet supermarket floor may only be able to say "I fell." A five-year-old who was struck by a falling item may not understand what happened at all.

The child's limited capacity to self-report creates a practical problem: the injured person's own account, which normally forms the foundation of a claim, may be minimal or unreliable. The parent gathers the evidence, the solicitor builds the case, and the court assesses the claim. The claim depends almost entirely on third-party evidence collected in the immediate aftermath of the accident.

The following evidence is particularly important in child injury claims:

CCTV footage. Most commercial premises operate CCTV systems. Footage can show the hazard, the accident, and the response. However, most systems overwrite recordings after 28 to 30 days. If a parent does not request preservation immediately, the footage may be lost. Write to the premises manager and request in writing that CCTV footage be preserved. Follow up with a solicitor's letter. For detailed guidance on securing footage, see CCTV evidence in public liability claims.

Accident report book. Ask the premises to record the incident in their accident report book or incident log. Request a copy. This creates a contemporaneous record with a timestamp and description. See accident report book guidance.

The timing matters more than most guides suggest: insurers handling child claims in Ireland routinely argue that the accompanying parent failed to supervise adequately. Photographic evidence taken at the scene showing the layout, the hazard, and the absence of barriers or warning signs directly counters this argument. Parents who photograph the scene before staff clean or repair the hazard create evidence that is difficult for the insurer to challenge later.

Photographs. Photograph the hazard before it is cleaned, repaired, or removed. Photograph the child's injuries. Include images that show the location, context, and any warning signs (or the absence of warning signs).

GDPR Subject Access Request. If the premises operator refuses to hand over CCTV footage voluntarily, a parent can submit a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) under Article 15 of the GDPR. The operator has one calendar month to respond. The Data Protection Commission confirmed in 2021 that a business cannot refuse a SAR simply because a personal injury claim is pending against them. For a full guide to securing footage, see how to request CCTV footage after an accident.

Witness details. Collect the names and contact details of anyone who witnessed the accident. Other customers, staff members, and security personnel may all be witnesses. Their accounts become more important when the child cannot provide a reliable version of events.

Medical records. Attend A&E or your GP as soon as possible, even if the injury appears minor. Medical records create a clinical link between the accident and the injury. For children, request a detailed report from the treating doctor, and note that children often cannot fully express their symptoms. See medical evidence for public liability claims.

A detail that catches many parents off guard: CCTV systems in Irish shopping centres and supermarkets typically overwrite footage within 28 to 30 days. If a solicitor's preservation letter is not sent within that window, the strongest piece of evidence in the claim may be permanently lost.

Psychological injury evidence. If your child is experiencing anxiety, sleep disturbance, or behavioural changes after an accident, a formal assessment by a child psychologist or psychiatrist is required to support a psychological injury claim. A GP letter describing the child as "upset" or "anxious" is not sufficient. Courts in Ireland require a clinical diagnosis linking the psychological condition directly to the accident, and this assessment should be arranged through your solicitor to ensure it meets the medico-legal standard.

The three defences insurers raise in child claims

In practice, insurers defending child public liability claims in Ireland rely on three predictable arguments. Understanding these in advance helps parents and their solicitors prepare evidence that directly counters each one.

Defence 1: Parental supervision failure. The insurer argues that the parent should have been watching the child more closely. This argument has some force when a child wanders into an area that was clearly off-limits, but it fails when the hazard existed in an area where children were expected to be, such as a shop aisle, a hotel lobby, or a restaurant dining area. The occupier's duty to maintain safe premises is not displaced by the parent's presence. Both are assessed independently.

Defence 2: Ordinary play. The insurer argues that the child was simply playing normally and the injury was an unfortunate accident, not the result of a premises defect. Irish courts recognise that ordinary play does not create liability by itself. However, the question is whether the premises were safe for that play. A child who trips on a defective surface or is struck by an unsecured item has not been injured by ordinary play. The child has been injured by a premises hazard.

Defence 3: Voluntary assumption of risk under Section 5A. The insurer argues the child accepted the risk. For the reasons explained above under the Child Comprehension Shield, this defence is functionally unavailable against young children who lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend complex premises risks. Even for older children, the bar is high: the child must have been "capable of comprehending" the specific risk that caused the injury, not just aware that some general risk existed.

↑ Back to top

How do child injury claims differ from adult claims in Ireland?

Unlike in England and Wales, where there is no mandatory pre-court assessment body, all personal injury claims in Ireland (except medical negligence) must be submitted to the Injuries Resolution Board before court proceedings can begin. For child claims, the next friend submits the IRB application on the child's behalf.

A parent acts as next friend, the IRB assesses the compensation, and a judge approves the settlement. Child public liability claims follow the same basic structure as adult claims, but with several important differences. For a full explanation of the child-specific process, see how child public liability claims work in Ireland. For guidance on who can bring a claim, see who makes a claim on behalf of a child.

Key differences between child and adult public liability claims

Feature	Adult claim	Child claim
Who brings the claim	The injured person directly	A parent or guardian as "next friend"
Time limit	Two years from the date of knowledge	Two-year clock does not start until the child turns 18 (claim must be filed before the child's 20th birthday)
IRB application	Standard application	Next friend submits on behalf of the child. The €45 online / €90 postal fee applies.
Settlement approval	Can be accepted directly	All settlements must be approved by a judge (infant ruling). The judge can reject a settlement they consider too low.
Compensation payment	Paid to the claimant	Held by the Courts Service until the child turns 18. Early release may be granted by court order for approved purposes such as medical treatment or education.
Contributory negligence	Assessed objectively (reasonable person)	Assessed subjectively (Age-Adjusted Negligence Threshold based on the child's age and development)
Section 5A defence	Available to the occupier where the visitor comprehended and accepted the risk	Functionally unavailable for young children who lack the capacity to comprehend premises risks (the Child Comprehension Shield)

One detail that surprises clients: a judge reviewing a child settlement is not bound by the figure both sides agreed. In a reported Irish case involving a child's sports injury, the judge rejected an initial settlement of €22,000 and directed the parties to negotiate higher, resulting in an approved figure of €30,000. The infant ruling process protects children from being under-compensated, even when their own representatives accept a figure.

Damages for children are assessed under the Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021⁶. Because children are still developing, injuries such as fractures to growing bones, facial scarring, or psychological trauma can have compounding effects over a long lifespan. Courts place particular weight on the long-term prognosis when assessing compensation for a child. For detailed information about compensation, see public liability compensation in Ireland.

One aspect the official guidance does not address directly: growth plate fractures in children. When a fracture occurs near a growth plate (the area of developing tissue at the end of long bones), it can affect the bone's future growth. A wrist fracture in an adult heals and the matter is closed. The same fracture in a seven-year-old may require years of orthopaedic monitoring to confirm that growth has not been disrupted. Irish courts take this uncertainty into account when assessing long-term prognosis, and judges reviewing infant rulings will consider whether the settlement adequately covers the risk of future complications.

What to do if your child has been injured in a public place in Ireland

The difference between assessment and acceptance often comes down to what happens at the infant ruling hearing. The infant ruling is not a formality. The judge reviews the medical evidence, examines the circumstances of the accident, and evaluates whether the proposed figure is fair for the child's long-term interests. In scarring cases, the judge may ask to see the child's injury directly. If the judge considers the figure too low, they can reject the settlement and direct the case to proceed to a higher offer or to trial. This judicial scrutiny is the strongest safeguard children have in the Irish claims process.

Unlike in England and Wales, where the limitation period for personal injury claims is three years, in Ireland the standard period is two years from the date of knowledge. For children, the clock is paused until age 18 in both jurisdictions, but the shorter Irish baseline means acting promptly after an accident is even more important here.

The time limit for public liability claims gives children until their 20th birthday to file. However, evidence deteriorates with time. CCTV is overwritten within weeks. Witnesses forget details. Staff change jobs. Starting the process early, while memories and records are fresh, produces the strongest possible claim.

↑ Back to top

Common questions about child injury claims in Ireland

What to consider next

What if the occupier disputes liability?

If the premises owner or their insurer denies responsibility, your solicitor can gather independent evidence including engineering reports, CCTV analysis, and maintenance records to establish breach of duty. Many claims that face initial denial are resolved through the litigation process. For guidance on proving fault, see how to prove a public liability claim.

What if my child's injury worsens over time?

Children's injuries can develop unpredictably as the child grows. Growth-plate fractures, scarring on a young face, and psychological effects may worsen or become more apparent over months or years. Your solicitor will advise on whether to delay settlement until the medical prognosis is clearer, and the judge reviewing the infant ruling will consider the long-term outlook before approving any figure.

Can I claim for my own losses as well as my child's?

Yes. A parent who incurs travel expenses attending medical appointments, takes time off work to care for the child, or pays for private treatment can claim these as special damages within the child's claim. Keep receipts and records of all expenses from the date of the accident. See special damages in public liability claims.

Related guides on this topic: child public liability claims • claims on behalf of a minor • how to prove a public liability claim • evidence for public liability claims • slip, trip and fall claims • elderly slip and fall claims

Sources referenced on this page: ¹ Injuries Resolution Board (2026). ² Occupiers' Liability Act 1995. ³ Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023. ⁴ Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, s.8. ⁵ Civil Liability Act 1961, s.34. ⁶ Judicial Council Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021. ⁷ Data Protection Commission, CCTV guidance (2021). ⁸ IRB Annual Report 2024.

This guide is general legal information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts. Consult a solicitor for advice on your situation.