Child on bike damaged my car. Advice

Quentin

KerrBearrxo wrote: »

He could take them to small claims court could he not?

Yes.


(Though is unlikely to win using your argument, as parents aren't "liable" for their children's actions)

Archergirl

Quentin wrote: »

Yes.


(Though is unlikely to win using your argument, as parents aren't "liable" for their children's actions)

Well perhaps they should be, they make take more notice of what they are doing then........

OnanTheBarbarian

The way I see it, if you have a kid who is learning to ride or is generally unsteady on a bike, then there remains a duty of care by the parent or supervising adult to make sure the child is riding the bike in a manner where either they are proficient in their operation of the cycle, or in the event they are wobbling all over the place, not allow them to ride the bike past parked vehicles where there is probability and therefore reasonable foreseability that damage to third party property may arise.

Aretnap

KerrBearrxo wrote: »

Really? I always thought parents were liable for their children until the age of 18! That's so stupid....

No they're not. Why should they be? People are liable for their own actions and failures - not those of other people.

As above the parents might be liable if they were negligent themselves, ie if they failed to supervise the child in the manner that would be expected of a reasonable parent, and the damage was a foreseeable consequence of that failure. However allowing your child to ride a bike is not in itself regarded as unreasonable or negligent, thankfully.

He could take them to small claims court could he not?

Anyone with £25 to spend (depending on the size of the claim) can take anyone else to the small claims court. It doesn't mean that they have any chance of winning though, and they can be landed with the other side's allowable expenses if they don't. Without some evidence of negligence on the part of the parents it's simply throwing good money after bad.

lisyloo

However allowing your child to ride a bike is not in itself regarded as unreasonable or negligent, thankfully.

I'm confused so this is a genuine question.
Is allowing a young child who is not terribly steady on a bike to ride next to other people's property where it's easy to foresee hundreds of pounds worth of damage negligence on the part on the parent?

OnanTheBarbarian

lisyloo wrote: »

Is allowing a young child who is not terribly steady on a bike to ride next to other people's property where it's easy to foresee hundreds of pounds worth of damage negligence on the part on the parent?

I would say it fits the definition of negligence quite well.

lisyloo

What evidence to you gave haza?
Do you gave any evidence that the child actually did it? I.e, witnesses, photos.
Do you gave any evidence of the surroundings? E.g. Picture of narrow street with dozens of parked cars
Are there open spaces near by?
Do you have any legal advice on your home inrsurance where you could cal, a solicitor?

I am not a lawyer so you do need legal advice on whether your evidence reaches the bar for negligence.
Personally I think you should win, but I don't make the rules and that's what is important here.

huckster

Is there a difference in terms of proving liability exists in regard to whether it is a 4 year old child or a 4 year old horse or a 4 year old dog ?

More of an academic question, but it is interesting ( ish).

If a parent has any control over a childs actions, because they were supervising them, then any court action would be against the parent. It would be up to the supervising parent to ensure , as far as it is possible, to assess risk of damaging third party property or causing injury to a third party. If they failed to do that, then they are open to court claims against them. I believe there have been such cases, where people have won, but it might not be easy. A letter to the parent with a copy of the damage repair cost is the first step.

lisyloo

A dog is a licensed animal so yes you can sue the owner if a dog damaged you car (it's not the same for a cat). A dog is meant to be on a lead In a public place so to my mind any damage the dog does whilst off the lead constitutes the owner being negligent.
With a horse it would depend. If for example someone opened their window playing loud music and a horse bolted damaging a 3rd party car then it's not necessarily the case that the horse owner is negligent or the window opener either. It would depend on the actions of those involved.
Dog are meant to be under control I.e. On a lead, whereas horses or children cannot be controlled , but there is still a duty of care as to what is reasonble.

huckster

This comes down to supervision over what can be controlled and whether the supervisor should have known consequences of the human or animals actions causing damage to a third party.

A parent, guardian or other adult supervising a child can be liable for damage caused by that child, if it can be proven the supervision was negligent i.e they should have anticipated what might happen.

I have nephews who are hyper active and when they were younger they were a nightmare. It would have taken an army of supervisors to control them. I believe parents of children sued for damaging third party property have used diagnosed health issues to successfully defend claims. The parents could not have anticipated their childs actions because they had sudden hyper active fits of behavior and it was not advised to permanently restrain them.