Child run into side of my car causing damage + small claims court

Strider590 wrote: »

Strange, I don't get that impression from MSE, only the forum contributors. Two entirely different entities.

Yeah yeah, fair enough. You get my point though. You post one thread and say you own a Dacia Sandero, you'll be given a medal before some helpful unbiased advice.

Mention you own a 3 series and you'll be shamed into never posting again.

bertiewhite wrote: »

"It's what you have insurance for".

Why should the driver have to risk higher premiums because of damage caused by someone else?

Would the same people who make this statement feel the same if they were passing a horse that got spooked and it caused damage?

That's an entirely different scenario. Assuming the rider was an adult, they have a duty of care toward other road users and pedestrians and could be claimed against in the event of loss. In the OP's case, the third party was a child and as has been pointed out, it would be almost impossible to make a claim and probably impossible to enforce it anyway.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I suspect the half you're referring to took more issue with the OP's attitude to the initial advice he received than to his choice of car. Within a few posts he'd gone from asking advice about his situation to shouting down anyone whose view wasn't that he should sue the child's parents. The OP chose to declare what car he was driving, which was entirely incidental to the accident. You could say he has more of a hang-up about it than those who've responded. Why else specify the make and model when it's entirely irrelevant? He then invited further criticism by stating that he wanted to go ahead with an official process to cover his losses but wants to dodge official process to protect his insurance.

The OP is the latest in a long line of people who post a query and ask for views, then complain about anyone who dares offer a view than contradicts their undeclared but obviously pre-determined course of action. As I advised the OP a few pages back: Just go ahead and sue the child's parents if that's what you want to do. And don't tell your insurer about the accident. It's no skin off my nose.

Tell me I'm wrong though. There are little passive aggressive digs throughout this thread, because it's only £190, and "well if you own a Beamer then you probably carry more than £190 in your wallet", that kind of nonsense. Also, I would imagine it costs more to repair a BMW than my crappy Mazda.

As I said earlier, I think the OP is onto a loser, and taking them to court will just prolong the inevitable. I also agree that they need to declare it to their insurer immediately, as the mother will almost certainly claim injury.

I have a lot sympathy with the OP though. I live in a street where children play all kinds of sports in the road (away from their parents cars..... of course) and run out from behind cars without looking. It would actually be nice to see the parents made accountable..... after all, it's not their property being damaged, but it is their children kicking footballs at cars and causing mayhem when people are trying to get home after a 12 hour day at work. Driving down my street in the summer months, you have to the reactions of a ninja, or do as I do, and drive at like 5mph.... but you know, even at 5mph, you can hit someone? I suppose I could always park a mile away, like MSE forum users recommended that guy who was struggling to park his car outside his house. I'm sure it'd be great in winter.

glentoran99 wrote: »

Your actually comparing a horse with a child? Just think about that for a moment

They have a point, it's poor parenting and at that age I expect them to know not to run across the road.

bertiewhite wrote: »

"It's what you have insurance for".

Why should the driver have to risk higher premiums because of damage caused by someone else?

Would the same people who make this statement feel the same if they were passing a horse that got spooked and it caused damage?

Because they seem to drive in areas which have children running into cars which makes them more likely to make an insurance claim.

With regards to the horse, I think the statement does apply. Sometimes thing happen that are not due to anyone's negligence. The horse may have been perfectly happy with cars passing until one day it goes loopy. Best to put it down to experience and move on, rather than try to apportion blame to someone where none might exist, particularly where the damage is as minor as £190.

In the case of a horse, it seems unlikely that a rider would knowingly risk taking a nervous horse on the road, since the obvious first victim of any incident will be them.