There's no denying that brain damage is a terrible injury and a traumatic experience for a young boy and his family to go through, with doubtless devasting, long-term effects.

But honestly, is this really necessary?

It. Was. An. Accident. Tragic, of course. But still.

Besides, if the woman concerned had been supervising at the time, is it likely that things would have turned out differently?

Would she, with super-human ability, have been able to pinpoint the exact moment at which a seemingly innocuous shoe heel was about to become a deadly weapon, and swoop in with the kind of speed normally only attributed to Superman, or perhaps stop time in the manner of Hiro from Heroes, in order to interrupt the offending somersault before it caused lasting damage to a young boy's life?

Or would the fact that children are always wont to leap around boisteriously on a bouncy castle have meant that the exact same scenario would have unfolded?

And now the sinful father has been brought into proceedings, who now has to deal with not only the upset that such an accident would undoubtedly cause him, but also the fact that he is being held responsible for (allegedly - since he in fact denies it) doing what all other parents presumably said to their children at that party: "Yes, son, you can go on the bouncy castle. That's what it's there for, after all."

Personally speaking, I think it's all too obvious that the real culprit here is the undisclosed manufacturer of the offensive shoe, for not ensuring that their heels instantly evaporate on contact with a person's head. Talk about irresponsible.