scratched car

Chippy_Minton_2

hundredk wrote: »

And failing to adequately supervise the minor is negligent.

So how would you go about proving that?

Chippy_Minton_2

Quentin wrote: »

Are you suggesting it was criminal damage?

It was just the consequence of the accident.

It would make no odd's if the child is 9 or under.

hundredk

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

And?

Under what act and section could the "child" be made to pay up?

I haven't said the child could be made to pay up. I said the child caused the damage. Those cost of the damage can be recovered from the parent or guardian imo.

hundredk

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

So how would you go about proving that?

I wouldn't set out to prove that, I'd be looking to recover the costs.

To do that, all amicable routes would be exhausted first and, in going through this process the stance of the person held responsible for the damage would become apparent. Most wouldn't record this so a log detailing the version of events would provide the better case at small claims court.

Presenting any evidence and facts (from my perspective), photos etc I had of how, where, when plus any relevant background info to strenghthen the case. A lot of this would be one persons word against another (hence the log) so unless the parent is an out and out liar common sense would prevail and lead to an award imo.

In this instance, imo, I doubt the OP would be posting at all if her daughter just took the attitude she couldn't really care less what the neighbour thought.

Hintza

Family Law - Neighbours

Damage done by children. If a neighbour's child causes damage to a property, a conciliatory approach to settle the matter is probably the best solution. Legally, the child can be sued for damages if s/he is old enough to know what s/he was doing. In practice, this is unrealistic since few courts would look favourably on such an action, and a child is unlikely to have much money to pay any damages.
However, the parents of the child may be liable for negligence and damages if they have trusted the child with something dangerous that was beyond her/his capability to use responsibly, for example, an air gun. The parents may also be liable if they have failed to exercise the control that would be expected of a parent given the child's age.

From here:- http://www.family-solicitors.co.uk/damage-done-by-children.htm

Hintza

This might make interesting reading (more from a Scots Law point) but the interesting bit is children are likened to slaves in the legal sense.

Fascinating reading:-

5. The Roman law may be summarised by saying that in all cases the actual delinquent was liable to make reparation, either financially in the case of a free person sui juris, or by personal servitude in the case of a person without property, whether he was a slave or, in the older law, a filiusfamilias. This second type of liability could be commuted in the option of the paterfamilias, but he was never under any vicarious liability.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/10/18259/26895

dieselhead

Personally I think the law is irrelevant here, morally OP I feel you or your daughter should pay for the damage. I appreciate that all children have accidents, however no-one else should be out of pocket for someone else's child's error. If I understood the initial post correctly this is a hire car and the neighbour is likely to be charged a fee on its return for the repair. The OP or the OP's daughter should be paying for this.

Quentin

dieselhead wrote: »

Personally I think the law is irrelevant here, morally OP I feel you or your daughter should pay for the damage.

This forum is for moneysaving, not moral advice.

The OP asked for specific advice regarding the incident, but it seems the holier than thou brigade scour these threads for an opportunity for preaching (non moneysaving sermons!).

aqueoushumour01

Quentin wrote: »

This forum is for moneysaving, not moral advice.

The OP asked for specific advice regarding the incident, but it seems the holier than thou brigade scour these threads for an opportunity for preaching (non moneysaving sermons!).

true, but how do you know the 'victim' is not a member of MSE - he's certainly not saving money by having to pay for the damage he didn't cause when giving the hire car back

goldspanners

Quentin wrote: »

This forum is for moneysaving, not moral advice.

The OP asked for specific advice regarding the incident, but it seems the holier than thou brigade scour these threads for an opportunity for preaching (non moneysaving sermons!).

theres saving money then theres being a d***head, and if the op was my neighbour. i certainly wouldnt put my neighbour in the money saving category if this happened to me.
save money by taking your child to the park away from parked cars. then they wont damage any more.
hardly a safe to allow a child who is clearly unable to control a bike near a road with parked cars on it anyway is it?
another responsobility being neglected.