Criminal Charges Dropped in Australian Bouncy Castle Tragedy. Would a Canadian Operator Be Civilly Liable for Negligence?

Warning: This story contains details that may be distressing to some readers.

On December 16, 2021, a devastating tragedy occurred at Hillcrest Primary School in Devonport, Tasmania. During an end-of-year celebration, a sudden and powerful gust of wind lifted a large inflatable jumping castle into the air. Nine children who had been playing inside fell from a height of around 10 metres. Six children, all aged 11 or 12, were killed; three others were seriously injured.

The inflatable castle was operated by Taz-Zorb, a local business owned by Rosemary Gamble. Taz-Zorb provided inflatable and zorbing equipment for events. The jumping castle used at Hillcrest had been anchored using metal pegs and, after the incident, questions were raised about whether that anchoring was adequate and whether the weather conditions had been properly assessed. These are only allegations and have not been proven in court.

Criminal charges were brought against Gamble under Australia’s Work Health and Safety Act 2012. Specifically, the prosecution alleged a breach of section 32, which prohibits failures to comply with health and safety duties that expose individuals to the risk of death or serious injury:

The central legal issue was whether Gamble had failed to comply with her workplace safety obligations in a way that amounted to a criminal offence.

On June 6, 2025, Magistrate Robert Webster found Gamble not guilty. The full reasons for the decision are publicly available here. In finding not guilty, Magistrate Webster explained:

“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the failure to anchor all eight points of the jumping castle or to use heavier or different pegs was a failure to take reasonably practicable steps in the circumstances. The sudden and highly localised wind event, described by numerous witnesses as freakish, was not reasonably foreseeable.” (para. 117)

“Even if the defendant did not fully comply with the manufacturer’s instructions or industry best practices, I am not persuaded that this amounted to a failure that exposed others to a risk of death or serious injury in the sense contemplated by the legislation, particularly in light of the extraordinary weather conditions.” (para. 119)

While the events were tragic, the Magistrate concluded that there simply wasn't sufficient evidence to find there was a failure to comply with the duty under the Category 2 offence.

Importantly, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case does not mean that all legal matters are resolved. A civil class action lawsuit has now been filed on behalf of the victims’ families against Taz-Zorb. The following analysis considers how a Canadian court would treat the determination of civil liability in similar circumstances.

How Would a Canadian Court Approach This Case?

If a similar incident happened in Canada, the primary legal framework for this type of claim would be the law of negligence. A negligence lawsuit allows injured individuals or their families to seek compensation where harm was caused by someone’s carelessness or failure to act.

To succeed in a negligence case, plaintiffs must prove four elements:

1. Duty of Care

The plaintiffs would first need to show that the operator owed a duty to take reasonable care. In a Canadian context, that would almost certainly be found. A commercial operator offering inflatables for children is going to owe a duty of care especially, given the foreseeable risk of harm and the vulnerability of children who would be using it.

The plaintiffs would likely argue that the operator should have foreseen that children could be injured if the inflatable was not properly secured or if it was used in unsafe weather conditions. If the court found that there was sufficient proximity between the parties and that the harm was foreseeable, it would likely conclude that a duty of care existed.

2. Breach of the Standard of Care

Once a duty is established, the next issue is whether the defendant failed to meet the applicable standard of care. The court would ask whether the operator acted as a reasonable person or business would have in similar circumstances. This would likely be the central issue in the case.

The plaintiffs would need to show that the operator failed to take steps such as:

• following the manufacturer’s guidelines for anchoring the inflatable;

• monitoring weather forecasts, especially for wind; or

• having clear safety and emergency protocols in place.

In the Taz-Zorb case, media reports indicated that only a few pegs were used to anchor the inflatable and that sandbags or secondary restraints were not added. However, the Magistrate in the criminal proceeding determined that the accident would have occurred even if more pegs were used. It’s unclear whether a civil proceeding would reach the same conclusion but, liability hinges on proving the fact that Taz-Zorb acted less than a reasonable person in the circumstances.

3. Causation

Next, the plaintiffs would need to prove that the breach of care actually caused the injuries. They would have to show that, but for the inadequate anchoring or the failure to act on weather warnings, the inflatable would not have lifted into the air and the children would not have been harmed. Taz-Zorb will obviously continue to argue that the wind gust was unforeseeable and so unusual that no reasonable operator could have anticipated it.

4. Damages

Finally, the plaintiffs would need to establish that they suffered actual and compensable harm. In this case, that element would be straightforward. Six children lost their lives and others were seriously injured.

Conclusion

Although the criminal prosecution in Australia resulted in a not guilty verdict, civil liability remains an open legal question. If a similar case were brought in Canada, a negligence lawsuit would almost certainly be pursued. Whether it would succeed would depend on whether the plaintiffs could prove that the operator failed to take reasonable precautions in the circumstances and that this failure led to the tragic outcome.