Who should pay for accidental damage by child

TBagpuss

fosswire wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

If my daughter was the child of both of us, would your reply be different?

If it was OUR daughter, it would come out of our joint finances.

But as it was MY daughter so should I pay when the glasses were left out of their case. Aren't accidents part and parcel of life when you have children visiting.

If she was the child of you both, then the situation would be different. It would be your joint responsibility and (quite possibly) coming from joint finances in any event.

And if all three of you lived together as a family unit it might well be different and be something you'd treat as a 'family ' expense. But as you mention that your daughter was 'visiting' that doesn't appear to be the situation.

It is good manners for a visitor who breaks or damages something to offer to make good the damage. If the damage is done by a minor child then the responsibility is that of the parent.

Your partner is free to leave her specs on her sofa in her own home. On a practical level, it often isn't realistic to have glasses in a case whenever they are taken off - a glasses case isn't something you carry around the house with you, so your argument would mean that your partner would have the inconvenience of getting up, going to find wherever she had left the case each time. IT doesn't really work.

The situation might be different if the glasses were somewhere really silly - if you partner had left them on the floor under a table and your daughter trod on them while taking a seat, for instance, but on the arm of a chair or sofa isn't really in that category.

peachyprice

fosswire wrote: »

Aren't accidents part and parcel of life when you have children visiting.

Yes, and as a visitor it's your responsibility to pay for any damage caused by your child. I don't know why you would think it should be any other way.

silvercar

Would the answers be different if you had popped to the corner shop, leaving your child in the care of the partner?

Would people then say that partner was looking after the child and should have been responsible for putting glasses out of harm's way?

peachyprice

silvercar wrote: »

Would the answers be different if you had popped to the corner shop, leaving your child in the care of the partner?

Would people then say that partner was looking after the child and should have been responsible for putting glasses out of harm's way?

No, I don't think so.

fivetide

Sounds to me like someone broke the arm putting the lens back in. That or they were knocked on the floor and stood on.


A fall off the sofa wouldn't cause that much damage unless there was an inherent weakness or other stress placed on them.


If they were my glasses, I'd be miffed I couldn't see but pay for it myself. Accept it as an accident. I wouldn't mind the partner offering to pay though.

duchy

If your relationship was a genuine partnership rather than just a girlfriend visiting a boyfriend's house my answer would be different but in this case as it appears your boyfriend expects you to pay- then pay up but if you are thinking of making this relationship a genuine partnership in the future then don't forget this incident and evaluate their attitude towards your daughter and financial issues before thinking about moving in with them with her.

thorsoak

fosswire wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

If my daughter was the child of both of us, would your reply be different?

If it was OUR daughter, it would come out of our joint finances.

But as it was MY daughter so should I pay when the glasses were left out of their case. Aren't accidents part and parcel of life when you have children visiting.

So basically, you want to wriggle out of your responsibility to pay for them? What a wonderful catch you are!

barbarawright

Reading glasses aren't particularly expensive - it's perfectly OK to just get a pair in Boots for £20 or so. It's not that big a deal paying for a new pair surely

Generali

If you leave delicate things like glasses unprotected when there's an 8-year old around then more fool you.

Parents can't be responsible for every action of their child. I would suggest that the negligence lies with the adult who left a vulnerable piece of property unprotected in the knowledge that a small child was present.

Most Britons seem to think that children should somehow come out of the womb fully formed and able to act like an adult or sit in the corner and stare at the wall. It's one of the reasons I don't live there any more. It's a country full of child haters.

Claire_A87

Generali wrote: »

Most Britons seem to think that children should somehow come out of the womb fully formed and able to act like an adult or sit in the corner and stare at the wall. It's one of the reasons I don't live there any more. It's a country full of child haters.

...well that escalated quickly.