Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • apd100
    • By apd100 11th Sep 17, 5:20 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 16Thanks
    apd100
    Child run into side of my car causing damage + small claims court
    • #1
    • 11th Sep 17, 5:20 PM
    Child run into side of my car causing damage + small claims court 11th Sep 17 at 5:20 PM
    An 8 year old boy ran out into the road at full speed and hit the side of my car. I stopped and checked he was okay, he had minor bruising but was taken in an ambulance for a checkup and is perfectly fine. My car is not. After speaking to the kids mother, her response was "thats what your insurance is for". So I'm thinking of taking it to a small claims court. Police attended the scene and I was given a log number and breathalysed. The quote for the repair is £190 as thankfully, all the damage was contained the off-side front wing of my 3 series bmw which WAS immaculate.

    I know I'm going to get nowhere with this woman paying me without an official letter going through her door, but I want to know if this is something a small claims court can deal with?

    Regardless of it being an accident on the kids part, he has still caused damage to someones property to which his parents should be responsible for?

    Thanks in advance!
Page 4
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 11th Sep 17, 8:52 PM
    • 603 Posts
    • 309 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    If you read further on, he doesn't know his off-side from his near side. A bit like not knowing port from starboard when steering a ship.

    As for his claim, he's sunk without a paddle because the child has the defence of infancy. He is under the age of 10 and his parents can't be found legally responsible either.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    So I see. £190 isn't much considering he's running an "immaculate" 3 series, I'd get it out right and move on. Forget about any court action.
    • cjdavies
    • By cjdavies 11th Sep 17, 8:54 PM
    • 2,791 Posts
    • 2,795 Thanks
    cjdavies
    I would also recommend telling your insurance, there is a chance the mother will claim for injuries all because she failed to teach the basics of road safety, and innocent people are the ones that get screwed over.

    £190 that's quite cheap.
    • societys child
    • By societys child 11th Sep 17, 8:55 PM
    • 4,822 Posts
    • 5,256 Thanks
    societys child
    Not sure a parent is legally bound to pay, there may be some responsibility; but I would just forget it ever happened.
    Originally posted by sevenhills
    Stupid advice.

    Try again on another thread, but instead of saying the car is a BMW, put Nissan
    Originally posted by sevenhills
    Oh, very funny, mine was actually a Nissan and although the 8yr old damaged his leg when he ran into it, the Nissan didn't fall apart, there was no damage to the vehicle at all . . .
    Last edited by societys child; 11-09-2017 at 8:57 PM.

    • AquaGirl
    • By AquaGirl 11th Sep 17, 9:17 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AquaGirl
    Who's to say your version is the true story?
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    about 6 adults, who have all messaged me on facebook to see if I was okay, 2 elderly whitnesses who passed their details to me and also stopped to tell the parents what had happened. Anything else?
    Originally posted by apd100
    Got to love the internet & the people out to pull others apart at every opportunity. I'm only surprised there wasn't a follow up of "well we only have your word that there's 6 people, what if there's actually only 1 person who's a blind man but said he heard everything".



    I recently spectated an argument on Facebook. It was in my local area group where residents of the area join. Plenty of 1000s of people in the group kind of thing. An incident occurred where a child was careless (i wont go in to detail but it was actually a funny story - nobody was harmed). The amount of people who thought the child was blameless JUST because it was a child was unreal.

    Which makes me wonder what the reactions would've been on this thread had it been a saggy pants wearing teenager running out & caused the damage. Would the OP have been turned on as quickly? Maybe, maybe not.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 11th Sep 17, 9:21 PM
    • 1,443 Posts
    • 970 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    Got to love the internet & the people out to pull others apart at every opportunity. I'm only surprised there wasn't a follow up of "well we only have your word that there's 6 people, what if there's actually only 1 person who's a blind man but said he heard everything".



    I recently spectated an argument on Facebook. It was in my local area group where residents of the area join. Plenty of 1000s of people in the group kind of thing. An incident occurred where a child was careless (i wont go in to detail but it was actually a funny story - nobody was harmed). The amount of people who thought the child was blameless JUST because it was a child was unreal.

    Which makes me wonder what the reactions would've been on this thread had it been a saggy pants wearing teenager running out & caused the damage. Would the OP have been turned on as quickly? Maybe, maybe not.
    Originally posted by AquaGirl
    Stop being so emotional. Stick to facts.

    The child is 8 years old. FACT

    The age of legal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. FACT.

    You cannot sue someone who is too young to have responsibility for their actions by legal definitions.

    If it had been a 'saggy trousered teenager' (great generalisation there) then legally he could have been held responsible, but whether he would have had the funds to pay is another matter.

    The parents? They have no legal responsibility at all.

    Not fair? As Esther Rantzen used to say, "That's Life".
    Last edited by Mercdriver; 11-09-2017 at 9:23 PM.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 11th Sep 17, 9:26 PM
    • 4,824 Posts
    • 3,828 Thanks
    glentoran99
    Got to love the internet & the people out to pull others apart at every opportunity. I'm only surprised there wasn't a follow up of "well we only have your word that there's 6 people, what if there's actually only 1 person who's a blind man but said he heard everything".



    I recently spectated an argument on Facebook. It was in my local area group where residents of the area join. Plenty of 1000s of people in the group kind of thing. An incident occurred where a child was careless (i wont go in to detail but it was actually a funny story - nobody was harmed). The amount of people who thought the child was blameless JUST because it was a child was unreal.

    Which makes me wonder what the reactions would've been on this thread had it been a saggy pants wearing teenager running out & caused the damage. Would the OP have been turned on as quickly? Maybe, maybe not.
    Originally posted by AquaGirl

    He hasn't informed his insurance, There could be a claim against him, that could well be what he faces down the line, it wasn't about pulling anyone apart,
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Sep 17, 9:37 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    The age of legal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. FACT.

    You cannot sue someone who is too young to have responsibility for their actions by legal definitions.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    Merely saying FACT in capital letters does not make something true.

    10 years is the age of criminal, not legal, responsibility in E & W.

    The OP is not suggesting that the child has committed a crime, but rather asking about a civil claim. AFAIK there is no such age limit in civil law.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 11th Sep 17, 9:46 PM
    • 4,824 Posts
    • 3,828 Thanks
    glentoran99
    A small claim can be issued against a minor, Which must go before a court, cant be issued in default, however if you win how do you enforce payment?
    • Strider590
    • By Strider590 11th Sep 17, 10:06 PM
    • 11,622 Posts
    • 6,529 Thanks
    Strider590
    The amount of people who thought the child was blameless JUST because it was a child was unreal.
    Originally posted by AquaGirl
    Not only are they blameless, but that blamelessness is often transferred to the parent as well...... Boils my blood when people use their kids as an excuse for doing something stupid/illegal/etc.
    “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 \/ \/ \/
    • buglawton
    • By buglawton 11th Sep 17, 10:07 PM
    • 7,005 Posts
    • 3,227 Thanks
    buglawton
    The child had minor bruising, your 3 series bmw suffered £190 damage?

    Not sure how it'd go in court.
    Originally posted by societys child
    Could one sue BMW for making weak cars?
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 11th Sep 17, 10:12 PM
    • 603 Posts
    • 309 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Merely saying FACT in capital letters does not make something true.

    10 years is the age of criminal, not legal, responsibility in E & W.

    The OP is not suggesting that the child has committed a crime, but rather asking about a civil claim. AFAIK there is no such age limit in civil law.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    But what's the point? An 8 year old is unlikely to have the means to pay.
    • angrycrow
    • By angrycrow 11th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    • 391 Posts
    • 301 Thanks
    angrycrow
    Nope. Generally people are responsible for their own wrongdoing - nobody else's. Parents are not usually liable for damage caused by their children. At least, not legally. Morally some people might argue that they are - but if you're talking about the small claims court then you're talking about legal responsibilities, not moral ones.

    To claim against the parents you would have to demonstrate that the parents themselves were negligent in some way, for example by persuading the judge that a reasonable parent would not have allowed an 8-year old to play outside unsupervised. Don't think you'd get very far with that one.

    Alternatively you could file a claim against the child personally, but you might run into 2 problems:

    First, negligence on the part of a child is assessed on the question of whether they took the level of care that would be expected of a reasonable (8-year-old) child, which is obviously much lower than the level of care expected of a reasonable adult. It's difficult to prove negligence on the part of a child, and impossible in the case of very young children who have little or no concept of their actions' consequences.

    And second, an 8 year old child is unlikely to have £190 in his piggy bank, so even if your claim is successful you're unlilely to get paid (as above, the parents would have no obligation to pay on the child's behalf).

    Alternatively you could accept that !!!! happens and that you can't always demand that someone else pays for every bit of misfortune that befalls you in life, and put it down to experience.
    Originally posted by Aretnap
    This is superb advice and spot on. I would guess this poster is a solicitor or injury claims handler based on their advice.

    The only thing I would add is a caution that if you take this to a civil claim against the child it will need to go before a judge. The Childs age means the judge can not find contributory negligence against the child. In practice this means you have to demonstrate you did everything possible to avoid the collision. You have stated this is a 20mph zone so the duty of care on drivers to watch for children would be even higher. Simply not having seen the child prior to his running out could be enough to sink your claim.

    I cannot stress strongly enough that you need to report this to your insurer now. They will obtain all the witness statements now whilst it is fresh in everyone's mind and a copy of the police report and hold it all on file pending a possible claim. The child has 13 years to bring a claim.

    If you fail to tell your insurer and then fail to mention it when taking out your next policy you run the risk of your policy being voided for false representation if a claim comes in a couple of years down the line.
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 11th Sep 17, 10:53 PM
    • 1,950 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    Stoke
    I must agree with others about informing them. There's witnesses and logs. Don't inform them? You will be in a world of hurt when the mother inevitably decides she can pay for his university tuition fees with a nice big lump sum.

    It's a tough break. I live in a road where kids routinely use the road as a football pitch, cricket pitch, all kinds of things. Of course there's balls hitting your car and there's nothing you can do. What's more, they too, like to be dangerous when crossing the road. Ultimately, you just have to be careful and learn from this experience.

    I don't have an issue with you owning a BMW. Certain people on this forum do though.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    • 2,407 Posts
    • 1,566 Thanks
    Car 54
    But what's the point? An 8 year old is unlikely to have the means to pay.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    Indeed. That's why I said as much in post #22.
    • treboeth
    • By treboeth 11th Sep 17, 11:14 PM
    • 898 Posts
    • 987 Thanks
    treboeth
    Indeed. That's why I said as much in post #22.
    Originally posted by Car 54
    Take it out of their pocket money or make them work it off cleaning chimneys
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Sep 17, 12:16 AM
    • 4,142 Posts
    • 3,626 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    [...] In practice this means you have to demonstrate you did everything possible to avoid the collision. You have stated this is a 20mph zone so the duty of care on drivers to watch for children would be even higher. Simply not having seen the child prior to his running out could be enough to sink your claim.
    Originally posted by angrycrow
    Or even enough for a counterclaim to succeed.

    OP admits he was stopped in a 20mph (hence, high risk) area, then started to move again at (or around) the same time a running child came onto the road.

    Poor little Timmy may have only suffered bruises but he's been having nightmares since and refuses to go play outside anymore, your Honour.
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 12th Sep 17, 12:17 AM
    • 1,659 Posts
    • 2,188 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    I really don't care about cars, but if it's only going to cost you £190 to repair an immaculate whatever that seems pretty good to me. My 8 year old and less-than-immaculate Hyundai i20 today had a service and MOT with some rectification work for £300.

    Now that was a forseable and budgeted for expense, and I accepted it as part of the cost or running a car. If you're running a more expensive model, any model, and are so worried about £190, even if the circumstances were annoying and unexpected, then perhaps you too should get a cheaper car?
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 7:11 AM
    • 1,950 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    Stoke
    I really don't care about cars, but if it's only going to cost you £190 to repair an immaculate whatever that seems pretty good to me. My 8 year old and less-than-immaculate Hyundai i20 today had a service and MOT with some rectification work for £300.

    Now that was a forseable and budgeted for expense, and I accepted it as part of the cost or running a car. If you're running a more expensive model, any model, and are so worried about £190, even if the circumstances were annoying and unexpected, then perhaps you too should get a cheaper car?
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    I really don't think the anti BMW stuff is all that clever. Driving a Hyundai doesn't make you hip and cool. There's no correct way..... Although in the eyes of MSE owning an Audi or BMW makes you evil.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 12th Sep 17, 8:00 AM
    • 4,142 Posts
    • 3,626 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    ... Although in the eyes of MSE owning an Audi or BMW makes you evil.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    To be honest, in my case it was the other way round. I've always been evil, which is why I chose to drive a BMW.

    On the other hand, I indicate correctly, overtake only when (a) it's safe and (b) I'm reasonably certain the person I'm overtaking will feel it's safe, stay within (a reasonable margin of) speed limits, and neither lane hog nor weave in & out of the left lane like some drunk orangutan on DCs. Oh, and I don't move my car into the path of running kids.

    It's all part of my evil pan to confuse other drivers seeing a BMW being driven like that
    • bertiewhite
    • By bertiewhite 12th Sep 17, 8:40 AM
    • 711 Posts
    • 749 Thanks
    bertiewhite
    "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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,977Posts Today

7,748Users online

Martin's Twitter