Just wondering would I need liability insurance for doing facepainting on some kids if I wasn't charging? Was going to do it for a relative's birthday party but they said best not if I don't have insurance.
IANAL, but my layman's understanding from a recent similar experience is that if something is done purely as a 'recreational' thing i.e. even though it's free, you're not promoting a or touting for business or anything like that, and you're using products you reasonably believe to be safe for the job, i.e. not house paint, then it's at the kids/ parents own risk. I had a similar concern when I did balloon modelling at my son's party, what with latex allergies or a balloon bursting and taking a kid's eye out or something. The above advice is what all the relevant web based advice I found suggested. Basically, as long as you know what you're doing and exercise safe practises, there should be no grounds for action against you should someone have an allergic reaction, for e.g.
Theres always someone who's allergic to something so in todays world its probably better off to be insured to the hilt or say f-it and leave it well alone with todays ambulance chasing lawyers and they wonder where all the little social events that kept local life running have gone
Can you not cover yourself by having a sign basically saying, It is up to parents to make sure they do not allow their child to be painted if they think they may have a reaction?
Comments
Or is that not suitable in this instance?
But how about having the parents sign some kind of waiver
Totally agree. Parents need to take responsibility for their own kids, and as long as you tell them its at their risk, go ahead.
This American "sue happy" culture just does my head in. People are getting frightened to fart in the street in case someone sues them.
Was just thinking the same thing...WTF has gone wrong with the world?