Who should pay for accidental damage by child

fierystormcloud

David301 wrote: »

I would like to think that in this situation the outcome would have been;

OP: "I am so sorry, i will pay for them to be repaired or replaced"

Partner: "No, that's ok, I enjoy having you and little one over"

OP: "well at least let me pay half"

Partner: "ok thats fair"

Sounds good. :T

Generali wrote: »

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.

I agree largely with your post, but not the last paragraph that starts 'most Britons' LOL. I definitely don't agree with that.

However three points baffle me. (About the OP's issue...)

1) Would the HOUSE insurance/home contents not cover this? Nobody has mentioned this. I mean, virtually every policy has an accidental damage section.

2) What about taking them to the opticians? Many of them (particularly Boots and Specsavers) will repair them for free. It doesn't cost them much.

3) Why are most people on here being so mean to the OP? One post said 'you can't have much of a decent relationship if you ask to ask this on a public message forum!' WTH?! Is there any need for that? And to make it worse, this comment got nearly 30 'thanks!' Why? Why are people thanking someone who is making such a mean remark?

In addition, many other people have posted spiteful put-downs that have received lots of 'thanks' too. The girl just asked for advice, and all she has been subjected to is insults and put-downs. This is supposed to be a board for advice and help with relationships, but people can't wait to put the boot in. No wonder people use throwaway pseudonyms to ask questions on here. No matter that ANYone puts, someone will come along and post a put-down within the first few posts.

OP, I would check if the opticians will fix it first, and then check home insurance; failing that, you should pay half each imo.

summerspring

fosswire wrote: »

My view is the glasses should have not been there on the arm and/or should have been in a case.

I agree with you. I never leave my glasses lying around, that's asking for trouble!

Torry_Quine

Depending on the amount of work needed to fix there may not be that big a cost anyway. He needs to go the optician and see what they say.

Reggie_Rebel

Reading glasses, a fiver in Wilko's.

FBaby

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.

A small child? At 8yo? You are kidding? At 8 yo, a child should have long learnt to look after their own things as well as that of others. If it was a pure accident, then it is fair that they should learn that sometimes, we are still responsible for things when they get damaged even if the harm wasn't intentional, in this case, her mother on her behalf. If it was as a result of them playing about, then they should be made to contribute towards the cost out of their pocket money.

I personally dispear that we are all too happy to treat children like adult when it comes to flexing rules such as TV watching, bed going etc... but when it comes to accepting responsibility, we treat them like they are still babies.

summerspring

FBaby wrote: »

A small child? At 8yo? You are kidding? At 8 yo, a child should have long learnt to look after their own things as well as that of others. If it was a pure accident, then it is fair that they should learn that sometimes, we are still responsible for things when they get damaged even if the harm wasn't intentional, in this case, her mother on her behalf. If it was as a result of them playing about, then they should be made to contribute towards the cost out of their pocket money.

I personally dispear that we are all too happy to treat children like adult when it comes to flexing rules such as TV watching, bed going etc... but when it comes to accepting responsibility, we treat them like they are still babies.

The adult wasn't behaving very responsibly, though, leaving their glasses lying around.

If the child wore glasses and she left them on the arm of the sofa she'd have got a telling off for not looking after them properly.

fierystormcloud

summerspring wrote: »

The adult wasn't behaving very responsibly, though, leaving their glasses lying around.

If the child wore glasses and she left them on the arm of the sofa she'd have got a telling off for not looking after them properly.

:T Absolutely agree.

I think it's rather unfair to expect a child who is barely out of school infant age to be super responsible and to not be a bit boisterous. Good grief; too many people expect kids to be grown ups too soon these days. She is EIGHT for goodness sake!

When there are children around, leaving glasses in a place they can easily be broken is just asking for trouble. And despite some people claiming they NEVER put their glasses in their case; I almost always put my reading glasses away in their case. And so does everyone else I know.

I can only think these people claiming this never have children under 18 in their house!

jobbingmusician

Every reply so far has assumed 'relationship partner' rather than 'business partner'. (Perhaps because it's on this board?)

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

fierystormcloud wrote: »

:T Absolutely agree.

I think it's rather unfair to expect a child who is barely out of school infant age to be super responsible and to not be a bit boisterous. Good grief; too many people expect kids to be grown ups too soon these days. She is EIGHT for goodness sake!

When there are children around, leaving glasses in a place they can easily be broken is just asking for trouble. And despite some people claiming they NEVER put their glasses in their case; I almost always put my reading glasses away in their case. And so does everyone else I know.

I can only think these people claiming this never have children under 18 in their house!

I've been through thirty odd years of wearing glasses, hit in the face with footballs, fallen out of trees, knocked off bikes, been a passenger in a road accident where I broke my neck, had two children plus their friends around, been attacked by my now ex, had dogs, cats, gone to the gym, gigged and gotten drunk enough to fall over several times. I drop my glasses or they slide off my face at least twice a day and I'm regularly retrieving them from the back of the bed frame in the morning.

I have never even once cracked a lens. I get cheap glasses. I don't look after them.



I think it's more likely that your daughter was bouncing on the sofa and either landed on them or knocked them off and trod on them. Which is probably why your partner thinks she shouldn't have to pay for replacements and doesn't appreciate being told its her fault for leaving them on her own sofa; the fibbing.

[Deleted User]

Has anyone said "The child" yet? How else do we learn personal responsibility without assuming responsibility for our own actions?

8 years old or not, i'm sure there are chores that could be done, pocket money that can be withheld, birthday money in the bank that could be used.

Failing that - the parent, then followed by the appropriate punishments. Unless those glasses had been left on the floor to be stood on, it's not the 'owners' fault they got broken.