Money Moral Dilemma: You broke it, would you pay to fix it?

DEVILFISH

I have to agree and say that if I were the 'spiller' I shouldn't be expected to pay. Obviously if I were well off then it would definitely be the decent thing to do, but it shouldn't be expected.
Comparisons have been made 'what if it was a baby in a pram rather than a laptop?', was this poster expecting the spiller to get their cheque book out if that were the instance?? Of course not, and if that went to court, presuming it was a true accident (even though tripping over your own bag is pretty stupid lets face it most of us have done something like that at some point) the spiller would not be found guilty "the accused is found guilty of manslaughter following an accidental coffee spill"....yeah right.
In the case of the laptop, just reiterating the previous sensible posters, the owner has taken it into a more than potentially hazardous environment and is a fool if they've not insured it. Some poor sod ACCIDENTALLY spilling coffee over it should in no way be held accountable or be made to pay, unless like I said they happened to be wealthy enough. If I were the laptop owner I might be angry at their 'stupidity' at the time, but you can't go around punishing people for accidents- that's why we have insurance.

kingkano

Money_saving_Martyn wrote: »

This is how I'm seeing the situation (at extremes) £100,000 per year executive Mr B. Wig has taken his £3000 state-of-the-art laptop into MacDonalds (*ALARM BELLS HERE*). Miss J Kyle, the slightly scatty overworked single Mum was getting a coffee from MacDonalds..... trip, spill, spark, pop.

Or how I see the situation....

MSE user king_kano takes his £200 eeepc into mcdonalds to use their free wi-fi to get the latest off the MSE forum. Mr B. Wig on 100k per year trips over his own briefcase spilling his coffee all over my bargain machine. He saids its your own fault and walks off....

Everyone can see a different story behind the headline.

I am no expert but I was wondering, all those that say claim on your insurance? Surely the insurance company will ask me for the details of the person who spilled the coffee and they would come after you themselves to recoup the costs?? Just like the driver at fault's insurance company always pays?

presuming it was a true accident (even though tripping over your own bag is pretty stupid lets face it most of us have done something like that at some point) the spiller would not be found guilty "the accused is found guilty of manslaughter following an accidental coffee spill"....yeah right.

There is rarely such a thing as an 'accident with no party to blame' - to cause an accident somebody somewhere had to be negligent in some way. Not paying enough attention, a slight mistake or something.

In your example it would be that the person left a bag in the way, didnt lift their foot properly over the bag, etc. Something of that ilk anyways.

lamp

IMO, this depends on the item. As many above have said, an expensive good has been brought into a place where accidents are likely to be frequent. If someone was reading a newspaper, and I tripped up over my bag and ruined it, then of course, I'd replace it. Same goes for drink, food, etc... low item things you'd EXPECT in such an environment. Same goes if they were wearing a leather jacket (not unusual), I'd offer the dry cleaning costs. I think these are reasonable scenarios and reasonable liability made. However, a laptop (or MP3 player, PSP, DS, you get the idea) are different. Their place is not in a restaurant (well, I've always believed you eat/drink in those, not home banking) and however painful it is to have such a high-value good damaged, you have to accept how unsuitable it was to bring the item in the first place.

I'm not saying charge to sue, avoiding responsibility, etc, I'm just saying that you should always pay for reasonable damage in a reasonable situation (i.e. coffee over leather jacket).

Al_Vampyre

I am stunned by the number of people that seem to think that not at least offering to pay is an acceptable option here.

It's precisely because people aren't willing to accept responsibility for their own actions (and accidents!) that we find ourselves in the ridiculous nanny state situation this country is in.

Why should the person who owns the laptop (or his insurance company for that matter) have to pay out because of your clumsiness?????

Sid_Harper

teeb wrote: »

Sue McDonalds!

I joke

Who's she then?!:D

jtlowrey

sohurt wrote: »

I can't beleive some people are saying they wouldn't pay?!

If you were sitting minding your own business at traffic lights and someone smashed into your car, you would expect them to pay.

If you left your car in a supermarket carpark and witnessed someone scraping it, you would want that someone to pay.

Likewise, if someone spilt a drink on your new suede coat or whatever, you would expect them to pay for drycleaning (which was actually a thread on here somewhere).

I would be absolutely livid if someone spilt coffee all over my laptop then said sorry and walked away - they would have no hair left on their scalp I can tell you that much! lol

Absolute rubbish.

When you take a laptop into a place like macdonalds you know its gonna be full of scally kids running around throwing ice cream at each other. Thats YOUR choice, YOUR risk and YOUR responsibility.

Similarly you wouldn't take a laptop out in the rain, to a kids party, to a football match, to a gig etc etc the latent risks are just too high.

Car at a traffic lights is different, everyone is responsible as a driver. Same as in a car park. Depends on the situation with the coat, but 99 times out of 100 its YOUR choice to both have and wear an expensive coat therefore you are responsible for its upkeep, not the poor sod who had an accident.

You may be livid, but you should be more livid with yourself for the stupidity of bringing £1000's worth of gear into a such a stupid place.

jtlowrey

Al_Vampyre wrote: »

I am stunned by the number of people that seem to think that not at least offering to pay is an acceptable option here.

It's precisely because people aren't willing to accept responsibility for their own actions (and accidents!) that we find ourselves in the ridiculous nanny state situation this country is in.

Why should the person who owns the laptop (or his insurance company for that matter) have to pay out because of your clumsiness?????

Its got nothing to do with clumsiness. Accidents happen. If you are perfect and dont have accidents then we have no argument.

Would you say that if a person was wearing a white feather £50,000 coat in maccys (unlikely i know, but possible, britney anyone?) and that was ruined in a similar accident then the person should be liable for that too? No, of course they wouldn't in exactly the same way.

DEVILFISH

kingkano wrote: »

There is rarely such a thing as an 'accident with no party to blame' - to cause an accident somebody somewhere had to be negligent in some way. Not paying enough attention, a slight mistake or something.

In your example it would be that the person left a bag in the way, didnt lift their foot properly over the bag, etc. Something of that ilk anyways.

This is the problem in a nutshell for me. There are lots of accidents that happen everywhere all of the time where there is no party to blame. Of course if any situation is analysed enough blame will be found somewhere and that's why lawyers and 'no win no fee' companies are making fortunes. Like Kingkano just said in his post I've quoted 'somebody somewhere had to be negligent in some way... [the spiller] didn't lift their foot properly'. How can you be negligent of not lifting your foot properly and tripping over something accidentally? IMAO this kind of attitude towards accidents feeds the frenzy around all the needless greedy litigation these days... we're on a slippery slope to fully emulating the US.

kingkano

DEVILFISH wrote: »

This is the problem in a nutshell for me. There are lots of accidents that happen everywhere all of the time where there is no party to blame. Of course if any situation is analysed enough blame will be found somewhere and that's why lawyers and 'no win no fee' companies are making fortunes. Like Kingkano just said in his post I've quoted 'somebody somewhere had to be negligent in some way... [the spiller] didn't lift their foot properly'. How can you be negligent of not lifting your foot properly and tripping over something accidentally? IMAO this kind of attitude towards accidents feeds the frenzy around all the needless greedy litigation these days... we're on a slippery slope to fully emulating the US.

But then we have the problem of when is saying something was an accident enough to relieve you of the consequences? I 'accidentally' cut down a tree that fell on your house. Its okay though it was an 'accident' so I can't be held liable for the damage? I 'accidentally' spilt boiling hot water on your arm, giving you 3rd degree burns and scarring for life. But it was an accident so you can't sue me. Even though I was running at the time and not paying due care to where I was going. Although I was careless, the spilling onto you wasn't intended so it does qualify as an accident. But ultimately I AM to blame for the consequences.

I don't want things at all to degenerate into the blame culture of America. At the same time I don't want to see this catchall 'accident - I'm not to blame' to take over completely. Where people don't take any care in anything and don't give a toss about the consequences, because they know they will just get off scott free anyways by saying it wasn accident.

Like Kingkano just said in his post I've quoted 'somebody somewhere had to be negligent in some way... [the spiller] didn't lift their foot properly'. How can you be negligent of not lifting your foot properly and tripping over something accidentally?

Im not quite sure what this bit meant? The person didn't take care where they were walking. Yes they 'accidentally' tripped over a bag ie that wasn't an intended action so its an accident. But the reason they tripped over the bag was because they were careless, which wasn't accidental.

jkgray

I am a barrister and there is no debate about it.

If the laptop owner decided to sue you in negligence he would succeed and you would have to pay.