Insurance?

kingfisherblue

A question has arisen between some friends whose children have a range of disabilities. Hopefully someone can advise.


If a person has an epileptic seizure in a shop, and breaks some items as a result, do they pay or does the shop's insurance?


This lead onto a further discussion about children who have behavioural problems. A few of our families have children who sometimes have a meltdown, for want of a better word. It isn't practical to avoid shops at all times. What would happen if a child had a meltdown and broke some items? Bearing in mind that some children just sink to the floor and others run off, so the parent would have to follow them.


Morally (legally?) the parent would have to pay.


Is there any insurance available for such situations? Is it necessary? I'm not talking about deliberate damage, but that caused as a result of a disability.


I'm in the fortunate position of having a child with no behavioural difficulties, but I know some families have become concerned following this discussion.


Thanks for any help, advice, or comments.

nannytone_2

i wouldnt think that it is the shops responsibility.
to them there would be no difference to having a breakage caused by a 'naughty' child or a disabled child....
someone has vroken something... end of story.
thy cant be held liable for someone elses disability unless they have caused the breakage by breaking a disability disvrimination rule.
but ...
a shop cant make you pay the retail price for any broken/damaged item. just the amount that THEY paid for it

cattermole

Some home insurance already covers a lot more than people realise.

The situations you describe could possibly happen but seldom would they cause signifant damage I wouldn't have thought. I know numerous people who have children with severe behavioural problems never heard of such an incident of signifant damage.

The odd bottle dropped accidentally in a supermarket doesn't normally get charged to the customer , normally they are more concerned about clearing it up so no one slips.

And would you take a child with severe behavioural problems into a bone china shop? Unlikely.

I can't see there being much of a demand or need for such insurance.

rogerblack

nannytone wrote: »

i wouldnt think that it is the shops responsibility.
to them there would be no difference to having a breakage caused by a 'naughty' child or a disabled child....
someone has vroken something... end of story.
thy cant be held liable for someone elses disability unless they have caused the breakage by breaking a disability disvrimination rule.

I disagree somewhat.

If the business displays a 'you break it, you bought it' type sign - and it's prominently visible - then if, and only if the disabled person was not taking reasonable precautions would this be enforceable - if the breakage was due to their disability - anything else would amount to discrimination.

This is not a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card - if you know that you have frequent uncontrollable spasms in your arms, and pick up a glass vase, well...

if it does not - then there has to be negligence - a much much higher bar than 'not taking reasonable precautions' for the person to be compelled to pay.

pmlindyloo

This is the official line.

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/pdf-library/publications/shop_breakages.pdf

rogerblack

pmlindyloo wrote: »

This is the official line.

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/pdf-library/publications/shop_breakages.pdf

I suspect by the URL, that it's probably not.

cattermole

rogerblack wrote: »

I disagree somewhat.

If the business displays a 'you break it, you bought it' type sign - and it's prominently visible - then if, and only if the disabled person was not taking reasonable precautions would this be enforceable - if the breakage was due to their disability - anything else would amount to discrimination.

This is not a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card - if you know that you have frequent uncontrollable spasms in your arms, and pick up a glass vase, well...

if it does not - then there has to be negligence - a much much higher bar than 'not taking reasonable precautions' for the person to be compelled to pay.

Yes this is strictly the legal situation but going back to the original question the likely hood of damage occurring that exceeded the premium one might pay over a year or several years is remote.

I tried to put it into perspective and real life in my post that one broken bottle isn't worth the premium in the first place and you wouldn't take a child that you thought was going to smash up a whole china shop in to it in the first place if you had any sense. so yes reasonable precautions. No insurance company would take that risk on without a very high premium. Yes we will cover for absolutely any damage without reasonable care being taken.

Commonsense has to prevail sometimes. I've never heard of one instance of mass breakages by a child with severe behavioral problems causing thousands of pounds worth of damage in a shop and I know a lot of parents with children who fall into this category. Couldn't get a hit with any examples either from google. There may be one somewhere but it's probably a very very rare occurrence.

HOWMUCH

My Grandchild is taught you look with your eyes and not with your hands. This was the same rule for his mum and his uncle. Shops struggle as it is without having to stand to breakages.
This is the same for any kind of breakage in my eyes. You break it you pay, children should be supervised at all times. I'm diabetic and if I broke something whilst having an hypo I would pay.

Savvy_Sue

pmlindyloo wrote: »

This is the official line.

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/pdf-library/publications/shop_breakages.pdf

rogerblack wrote: »

I suspect by the URL, that it's probably not.

It could be the same in New Zealand as it is here, but my 'puter's not behaving well enough for me to check ...

kingfisherblue

Thanks for everyone's comments. I'm fortunate, as my child is very placid most of the time, but there are some families in our group whose children have behavioural problems. Their parents don't take them into china shops, but even in a supermarket there is a possibility of breakages when a child has a meltdown, or an epileptic child has a seizure. The parents realise that it shouldn't be down to the shop to pay, in the unlikely event of this happening, hence the question about insurance.


I'll pass the comments on to those in our group that were interested.


Thanks again,


KFB x

System

HOWMUCH wrote: »

My Grandchild is taught you look with your eyes and not with your hands.

Tell me how this works with someone during a seizure ?