car windscreen chip, who is liable

Silver-Surfer_2

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Unless the child in question was deliberately aiming the stones at the cars then it could be an accident in the same way that a child kicking a football at a wall accidently hit a house window or a passing car.

You keep telling yourself that.

pappa_golf

bury the child in the "front yard"


front yard , funny metric speeling and what is a neighbour?




OP , are you in the UK?

odemwingie5

he was just playing round the front while i jet washed the driveway, i didn't see him throwing stones, i was told by the person he was throwing stones

odemwingie5

i have now been approached by another person saying that his car has been damaged and there is too many tiny dinks to repair and the new windscreen is going to cost £400 to replace

odemwingie5

subsequently i have been threatened with court action after saying that i will not be paying out £400 on your word that it was my son and no evidence

odemwingie5

AdrianC wrote: »

Are you believing the word of a four-year old, or did you sit there watching him throwing stones at people's cars?

i was approached by someone who said he was throwing stones, the car is 10 feet away from the garden he was in and the offending stones are the small ones used to decorate a small patch in next doors garden, i put 2 and 2 together

odemwingie5

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

You keep telling yourself that.

good luck working whether a 4 year old deliberated about aiming for a car

Silver-Surfer_2

odemwingie5 wrote: »

subsequently i have been threatened with court action after saying that i will not be paying out £400 on your word that it was my son and no evidence

An eye witness is evidence, I've already told you the little [STRIKE]!!!![/STRIKE] darling is below the age of criminal responsibility. This won't go to court.

Silver-Surfer_2

odemwingie5 wrote: »

good luck working whether a 4 year old deliberated about aiming for a car

It's a reckless act so if he were old enough would be good enough to rule out accidental damage and clearly fit criminal damage.

AdrianC

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

It's a reckless act so if he were old enough would be good enough to rule out accidental damage and clearly fit criminal damage.

He's below the age of criminal responsibility.

Clearly, the OP thinks that extends to parental responsibility.