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
    • 7Thanks
    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 5
    • Strider590
    • By Strider590 12th Sep 17, 9:02 AM
    • 11,550 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    Strider590
    Although in the eyes of MSE owning an Audi or BMW makes you evil.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    Strange, I don't get that impression from MSE, only the forum contributors. Two entirely different entities.
    “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
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 9:19 AM
    • 1,842 Posts
    • 654 Thanks
    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
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    I like your evil plan.
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 9:20 AM
    • 1,842 Posts
    • 654 Thanks
    Stoke
    Strange, I don't get that impression from MSE, only the forum contributors. Two entirely different entities.
    Originally posted by Strider590
    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.
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 9:23 AM
    • 1,842 Posts
    • 654 Thanks
    Stoke
    "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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    As I've already said, if the OP was driving a Dacia Sandero, half of this forum would be out picketing and protesting. It's just because they drive a Beamer.
    • Aylesbury Duck
    • By Aylesbury Duck 12th Sep 17, 9:36 AM
    • 1,045 Posts
    • 1,267 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    "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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    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
    • By Aylesbury Duck 12th Sep 17, 9:46 AM
    • 1,045 Posts
    • 1,267 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    As I've already said, if the OP was driving a Dacia Sandero, half of this forum would be out picketing and protesting. It's just because they drive a Beamer.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    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.
    • Stoke
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 9:54 AM
    • 1,842 Posts
    • 654 Thanks
    Stoke
    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.
    Originally posted by Aylesbury Duck
    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.
    Last edited by Stoke; 12-09-2017 at 9:59 AM.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 12th Sep 17, 9:55 AM
    • 4,608 Posts
    • 3,611 Thanks
    glentoran99
    "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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    Your actually comparing a horse with a child? Just think about that for a moment
    • cjdavies
    • By cjdavies 12th Sep 17, 9:57 AM
    • 2,598 Posts
    • 2,548 Thanks
    cjdavies
    Your actually comparing a horse with a child? Just think about that for a moment
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    They have a point, it's poor parenting and at that age I expect them to know not to run across the road.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 12th Sep 17, 9:57 AM
    • 10,025 Posts
    • 7,006 Thanks
    neilmcl
    Strange, I don't get that impression from MSE, only the forum contributors. Two entirely different entities.
    Originally posted by Strider590
    Mainly led by yourself you should add.
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 12th Sep 17, 9:57 AM
    • 633 Posts
    • 738 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    "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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    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.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 12th Sep 17, 10:01 AM
    • 15,143 Posts
    • 14,757 Thanks
    Guest101
    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
    • By Aylesbury Duck 12th Sep 17, 10:06 AM
    • 1,045 Posts
    • 1,267 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    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.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    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
    • By Stoke 12th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • 1,842 Posts
    • 654 Thanks
    Stoke
    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.
    Originally posted by Aylesbury Duck
    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
    • By Aylesbury Duck 12th Sep 17, 10:13 AM
    • 1,045 Posts
    • 1,267 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    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.
    Originally posted by Stoke
    I didn't take it as a dig. It would be a very boring forum if we all agreed on everything.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 12th Sep 17, 10:50 AM
    • 1,376 Posts
    • 918 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    "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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    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
    • By bertiewhite 12th Sep 17, 11:20 AM
    • 555 Posts
    • 509 Thanks
    bertiewhite
    Your actually comparing a horse with a child? Just think about that for a moment
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    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.
    Originally posted by Aylesbury Duck
    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
    • By shaun from Africa 12th Sep 17, 11:52 AM
    • 9,453 Posts
    • 10,621 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    OP have you had a bill for the ambulance yet?
    Originally posted by Gloomendoom
    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
    • By Aylesbury Duck 12th Sep 17, 12:07 PM
    • 1,045 Posts
    • 1,267 Thanks
    Aylesbury Duck
    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?
    Originally posted by bertiewhite
    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
    • By Strider590 12th Sep 17, 12:35 PM
    • 11,550 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    Strider590
    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. .
    Originally posted by Stoke
    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 \/ \/ \/
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

2,877Posts Today

7,967Users online

Martin's Twitter