Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

victory

chuckles1066 wrote: »

If I had children and one of them caused damage to someone else's property, I'd pay for the said damage.

.

Yes, you would but the mother of the child that scratched my car and was seen doing it refused , became verbal and made her son out to be an angel.... it was an awful situation to be in and it was not our fault, just her misbehaving son:mad:

loftus

chuckles1066 wrote: »

If I had children and one of them caused damage to someone else's property, I'd pay for the said damage.

End of. Guess I'm just old-fashioned.......

If you had a child that caused accidental damage to someone else's property and it was covered by an insurance policy you wouldn't use it?
Then why are the premiums being paid?

So working on your theory, if you have a child driving as a named driver on your motoring insurance and they have an accident, you wouldn't claim for that either?

pink_phantom

I think people are forgetting, the child wasn't with the op at the time. He was being looked after by someone who was responsible and who should have been supervising them better.

conradmum

chuckles1066 wrote: »

If I had children

Says it all really.
Personally I think that little boy should be beaten to death with broken bottles and then chuckles can dance on his grave.:rolleyes::rotfl:

Beware of posting on the families board asking for ADVICE, 'cos just lately what you'll get is other people's ill-informed, nasty OPINIONS.

chuckles1066

loftus wrote: »

If you had a child that caused accidental damage to someone else's property and it was covered by an insurance policy you wouldn't use it?
Then why are the premiums being paid?

So working on your theory, if you have child driving as a named driver on your motoring insurance and they have an accident, you wouldn't claim for that either?

Trust me, *no* insurance company will view a child lugging a brick over a 6ft wall as "accidental damage".

Don't shoot the messenger here, it's the way life is.

Your last paragraph has thrown me completely because only a Guardian reader would be able to equate it to what was being discussed.

You *don't* read the Guardian do you?

loftus

No - they can be equated.

The 7 year old did not know there was a car on the other side of the wall therefore the damage was accidental. With me so far?

If you had a son/daughter driving on your insurance who caused an accident through an error on their part that damage would also be accidental.

Going on your previous comments you, to be consistent, would not claim for the motoring accident as it was caused by your child to someone else's property.

Pretty consistent logic if you ask me - and no I don't read the Guardian.

loftus

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Trust me, *no* insurance company will view a child lugging a brick over a 6ft wall as "accidental damage".

But, according to the OP, the insurance company may well cover it.

pink_phantom

loftus wrote: »

No - they can be equated.

The 7 year old did not know there was a car on the other side of the wall therefore the damage was accidental. With me so far?

If you had a son/daughter driving on your insurance who caused an accident through an error on their part that damage would also be accidental.

Going on your previous comments you, to be consistent, would not claim for the motoring accident as it was caused by your child to someone else's property.

Pretty consistent logic if you ask me - and no I don't read the Guardian.

Exactly, They were probably just seeing who could throw them the furthest, a bit like "who can pee the highest". I am sure it's a boy thing. No worse than shooting catapults at targets. It's not mindless thuggery where they set out to vandalise. I still hold that the other parent should hold the major responsibility because they were responsible for the child at the time. I always supervise any kids that come over because I know I am responsible for them under my care.

Psykicpup

chuckles1066 wrote: »

No-one has mentioned "criminal" responsibility?

No-one has mentioned that the act of a 7 year old throwing a brick over a 6 foot fence was a criminal act.

Negligent, for sure. Culpable, definitely.

To anyone still reading, here's one for you; start a new post (a yes/no poll if you please) asking "should parents be held responsible for the actions of *their* offspring or should totally unrelated, random, innocent outsiders ultimately find that they can somehow be deemed to be responsible"?

Go on, I dare someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
esp...
'A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. '

I dont think it would be unreasonable to believe that a 7 yr old would have little comprehension of the results of his actions in an area he cannnot see! after all 2yrs ago he prob forgot he needed to wee cos he was playing!

((( hugs )) OP - hope you manage to get it all sorted out - if only we could insure our kids against some of the SILLY things they do :rotfl:

chuckles1066

loftus wrote: »

But, according to the OP, the insurance company may well cover it.

You need to replace the words "may well" with "hopefully will".

And while you're at it, replaced the sixth word in your quote with the words "someone else's".

The OP was relying on public liability insurance which won't apply in this case.

I don't know how much more simply it can be stated; you bring children into the world, you take responsibility for their actions.

God knows they cost us all enough as it is...............something like 72% (over £900) of my annual council tax bill relates to children (education etc)........and I don't even have kids!!

How does that work?