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

Options
17810121315

Comments

  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Options
    I'd suggest it's worth a claim against the parent, I mean it's the cost of a stamp to start with....
  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Options
    Stoke wrote: »
    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. 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.
    Ultimately, I can't know the motivations of other posters so no, I can't say you're wrong, but I suspect the nature of OP's early replies simply fed those who took issue with his choice of car. What might have elicited a more sympathetic response would have been something along the lines of "I like to keep my car in immaculate condition so it will cost me a lot to put this damage right".

    I agree that there is a problem with responsibility and accountability in some aspects of society, where too many people "know their rights" but don't want to shoulder their responsibilities.
  • Stoke
    Stoke Posts: 3,182 Forumite
    Options
    Ultimately, I can't know the motivations of other posters so no, I can't say you're wrong, but I suspect the nature of OP's early replies simply fed those who took issue with his choice of car. What might have elicited a more sympathetic response would have been something along the lines of "I like to keep my car in immaculate condition so it will cost me a lot to put this damage right".

    I agree that there is a problem with responsibility and accountability in some aspects of society, where too many people "know their rights" but don't want to shoulder their responsibilities.

    By the way, it's not a dig at you. It's the way of the world, and as everyone has established, if the OP sues the kid, he'll get £4.31 in coins from his piggy bank.... and if he tries to sue the parents, he'll get nothing.

    Life.
  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Options
    Stoke wrote: »
    By the way, it's not a dig at you. It's the way of the world, and as everyone has established, if the OP sues the kid, he'll get £4.31 in coins from his piggy bank.... and if he tries to sue the parents, he'll get nothing.

    Life.
    I didn't take it as a dig. It would be a very boring forum if we all agreed on everything.
  • Mercdriver
    Options
    "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?

    You get higher premiums even if you are found not at fault.

    On the question of the horse it would depend how the driver was driving and whether it was he/she that spooked the horse. I tend to drive really slowly and keep the revs down when passing a horse and rider as I know they can be more vulnerable than me - though if the horse were to fall on the car, I might be just as vulnerable.

    A careful and competent driver mitigates risks even if he/she is not to blame. That's part of the reason insurance premiums increase following a non fault accident.
  • bertiewhite
    Options
    Your actually comparing a horse with a child? Just think about that for a moment

    No, I'm asking if drivers would be happy if a horse caused damage to a car just as they seem to be if it's a child?
    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.

    It sounds like you're suggesting that parents don't have a duty of care towards their children and that the kids can do whatever they like, including running out into the road?
  • shaun_from_Africa
    Options
    OP have you had a bill for the ambulance yet?
    That's a very good point.


    I don't know if the ambulance service are required to put in a report of all RTA's they attend but if they do, there is a possibility that the accident will get to the notice of the OP's insurance company this way.
  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Options
    It sounds like you're suggesting that parents don't have a duty of care towards their children and that the kids can do whatever they like, including running out into the road?
    I'm not suggesting that at all - why would parents not have a duty of care towards their children?

    I'm pointing out that a person in charge of a car/bike/horse or whatever it is they're driving or riding is quite different from parental responsibility for a child. You seem keen to equate the two to make your point but they're not equivalent at all.

    As I've advised the OP on two occasions now: Go ahead and sue the parents.
  • Strider590
    Strider590 Posts: 11,874 Forumite
    Options
    Stoke wrote: »
    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. .

    And what non-sense it is too, because when you consider the finance, the running costs and maintenance, £190 is probably quite a lot of money when your monthly payments are equivalent to or often in excess of your mortgage/rent.
    The stereotyped assumption that they have money to burn is just wrong.
    “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”

    <><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/
  • Stoke
    Stoke Posts: 3,182 Forumite
    Options
    Strider590 wrote: »
    And what non-sense it is too, because when you consider the finance, the running costs and maintenance, £190 is probably quite a lot of money when your monthly payments are equivalent to or often in excess of your mortgage/rent.
    The stereotyped assumption that they have money to burn is just wrong.
    Yes.... correct, hence I am defending them. As I said, post two threads with the same content.... say on one you drive a Dacia Duster, and say you drive an Audi A6 on the other.

    "In Soviet Russia.....car drives you"
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards