Child on bike damaged my car. Advice

stator

Stranger decisions have been made in SCC. They aren't always presided over by knowledgeable judges. Sometimes they make decisions that seem to be based on the "Judge's" whim.

magpiecottage

KerrBearrxo wrote: »

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

Why? A 16 year old is entitled to ride a moped, not just a push bike. At 17 they can also drive a motor bike or a car.

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

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.

The problem with that argument is that there is ALWAYS a probability, however small. This takes us to the theme of the flying wheeliebin thread.

A child (or adult) may normally negotiate a parked car perfectly competently but on that one occasion get it wrong.

KerrBearrxo wrote: »

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

Of course - that does not mean he will win, though.

lisyloo

huckster wrote: »

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.

If you knew your children were hyper active then shoudn't that be something to take into account along with other factors, for example when letting them cycle close to expensive property or say water?
Obviously in individual cases it depends on what is and is not foreseeable, but to my mind a condition that is already known about and diagnosed in advance can be anticipated that it might occur.

rs65

lisyloo wrote: »

A dog is a licensed animal so yes you can sue the owner if a dog damaged you car

I thought the dog licence was abolished.

mrbrightside842

Go on Judge Rinder!

KerrBearrxo

I have to disagree with the above. This is purely based on me watching Judge Judy episodes though where the parent had to pay for damages their children did to the suing party. I'm not a lawyer or anything though so obviously it's not set in stone I just always assumed from good old Judge Judy that was the case. Lmao.

lisyloo

Don't be silly judge July is American. You need to be watching judge rinder !

lisyloo

rs65 wrote: »

I thought the dog licence was abolished.

Correct, remove the licensed but.
The rest can be found under the animals act 1971 (not just or rinder).

Quentin

Aretnap wrote: »

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.........

Not really. All £25 will get is a claim issued.

To get anyone to the court you also have to pay for the hearing! Which is why the OP faces far more than £25 to get this into court!

lisyloo

Quentin wrote: »

Not really. All £25 will get is a claim issued.

To get anyone to the court you also have to pay for the hearing! Which is why the OP faces far more than £25 to get this into court!

This is true, but a large number of cases never get to court.
Certainly the first letter is free.
You don't have to commit yourself up front to all the costs to write the first free letter, although I feel a lot if thought needs to go into that letter (enough to hit someone's conscience but not enough to make them defensive).

There are times I feel when it is worth fighting something on principle. I'm not sure whether this is one but just pointing out that sometimes its about fairness and not just money.

Our car was scratched once down 4 panels - the rubber grips were worn away at the end of the bicycle handle bars.
We just drove around with a car with a scratch on it in the end although We would have felt differently if it was a brand new car.