Should a child be billed for a accident?

Forums › Off topic › Should a child be billed for a accident?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#997670 2-Mar-2014 18:04

jeffnz:
Fred99:
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.

Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.

I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .

Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.

This.
It is also the way to address the "problem" - if there's a need to "do something" to prevent future accidents.
I've been on sports club committees, public liability insurance issues are always on the meeting agenda.
If the sports ground was council owned and managed - then it's the council's problem.

thats right its always someone elses's fault right, so now its the rate payers fault and they need to pay

Well if there is a problem (ie - with the possibility of stray cricket balls damaging cars - which would also mean that there's a risk of accidentally killing someone - then putting up adequate netting, rearranging the pitch etc) is infinitely preferable to the suggestion that some kid playing cricket in a cricket ground should be penalised for belting a six.

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

One NZ

#997680 2-Mar-2014 18:18

Fred99:
jeffnz:
Fred99:
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.

Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.

I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .

Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.

This.
It is also the way to address the "problem" - if there's a need to "do something" to prevent future accidents.
I've been on sports club committees, public liability insurance issues are always on the meeting agenda.
If the sports ground was council owned and managed - then it's the council's problem.

thats right its always someone elses's fault right, so now its the rate payers fault and they need to pay

Well if there is a problem (ie - with the possibility of stray cricket balls damaging cars - which would also mean that there's a risk of accidentally killing someone - then putting up adequate netting, rearranging the pitch etc) is infinitely preferable to the suggestion that some kid playing cricket in a cricket ground should be penalised for belting a six.

But the kid isn't being penalized. Any kid could just as easily have some sort of expensive accident elsewhere, take your pick of any number of scenarios, and his parents would be held accountable for damages. The fact is he damaged someone else's property, maliciously or not is not the question here, he is still responsible for causing said damage. He shouldn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card because his parents decided to make a media stink while shirking their responsibilities. How will he ever learn accountability?

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#997681 2-Mar-2014 18:21

From TFA: The company's head of customer relations, Suzanne Wolton, then sent a statement saying the case had been reviewed prior to the media inquiry. "Taine was not negligent and therefore not liable for the damage caused to our customer's vehicle.

Matter resolved. Even according to the insurance company he should not have been billed in the first place.

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

One NZ

#997690 2-Mar-2014 18:27

gzt: From TFA: The company's head of customer relations, Suzanne Wolton, then sent a statement saying the case had been reviewed prior to the media inquiry. "Taine was not negligent and therefore not liable for the damage caused to our customer's vehicle.

Matter resolved. Even according to the insurance company he should not have been billed in the first place.

Oh well, there you go - pity they didn't avert the PR disaster and resulting brand damage. I kind of feel for them.

Bah, I've been here 9 years and I still forget that people think differently here. I guess I was just brought up to believe that if I cause some sort of problem (even inadvertently), I am expected to make good.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#997706 2-Mar-2014 18:43

Demeter:
Fred99:
jeffnz:
Fred99:
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.

Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.

I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .

Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.

This.
It is also the way to address the "problem" - if there's a need to "do something" to prevent future accidents.
I've been on sports club committees, public liability insurance issues are always on the meeting agenda.
If the sports ground was council owned and managed - then it's the council's problem.

thats right its always someone elses's fault right, so now its the rate payers fault and they need to pay

Well if there is a problem (ie - with the possibility of stray cricket balls damaging cars - which would also mean that there's a risk of accidentally killing someone - then putting up adequate netting, rearranging the pitch etc) is infinitely preferable to the suggestion that some kid playing cricket in a cricket ground should be penalised for belting a six.

But the kid isn't being penalized. Any kid could just as easily have some sort of expensive accident elsewhere, take your pick of any number of scenarios, and his parents would be held accountable for damages. The fact is he damaged someone else's property, maliciously or not is not the question here, he is still responsible for causing said damage. He shouldn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card because his parents decided to make a media stink while shirking their responsibilities. How will he ever learn accountability?

God help him if he has to go through his entire life fearful of the fact that even when he's doing everything right (practicing cricket in a cricket ground, and belting a six), there's an element in society these days intent on forcing absurd lessons on "accountability" down his throat - based on some perversion of "personal responsibility" ideology.
TBH - it's probably the cause of half of the delinquency these days - rejection of "helicopter" authoritarianism. If some kids go off the rails - then perhaps that's a reason why.
I certainly would have told AA people exactly which part of their anatomy would have been a great place to stick their "bill". Insurance companies - LOL - they should never be mentioned in the same paragraph as "lessons in morality" IMO. They may be necessary - but they certainly are an evil.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#997712 2-Mar-2014 18:50

Fred99:

God help him if he has to go through his entire life fearful of the fact that even when he's doing everything right (practicing cricket in a cricket ground, and belting a six), there's an element in society these days intent on forcing absurd lessons on "accountability" down his throat - based on some perversion of "personal responsibility" ideology.
TBH - it's probably the cause of half of the delinquency these days - rejection of "helicopter" authoritarianism. If some kids go off the rails - then perhaps that's a reason why.
I certainly would have told AA people exactly which part of their anatomy would have been a great place to stick their "bill". Insurance companies - LOL - they should never be mentioned in the same paragraph as "lessons in morality" IMO. They may be necessary - but they certainly are an evil.

so how do you/we teach children about responsibilities or do you think it is up to the state to do this, or not as the case maybe.

I'm struggling here to see what the Insurance company did wrong and certainly can't see that this indignant parent is doing anything about teaching her children to be accountable for what they do.

I'm not saying the child should be punished at all but what has been learnt here?

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

One NZ

#997717 2-Mar-2014 19:00

Fred99:
Demeter:
Fred99:
jeffnz:
Fred99:
tdgeek: Liken this to a golf club. Stray balls happen . The sports ground should have insurance that covers this.

Kids hits car, kid at fault. Car insurance company pays out, no excess to car owner , goes after causer . Causer is insured by the golf club/ sports ground , so the sports ground insurer pays out, sports ground pays an excess.

I've had minimal claims myself. Three car accidents caused by the other, no problem. Seems to me the sports ground did not cover that incident .

Is it foreseeable that a sports ground could have an incident caused by its partipants? I believe yes.

This.
It is also the way to address the "problem" - if there's a need to "do something" to prevent future accidents.
I've been on sports club committees, public liability insurance issues are always on the meeting agenda.
If the sports ground was council owned and managed - then it's the council's problem.

thats right its always someone elses's fault right, so now its the rate payers fault and they need to pay

Well if there is a problem (ie - with the possibility of stray cricket balls damaging cars - which would also mean that there's a risk of accidentally killing someone - then putting up adequate netting, rearranging the pitch etc) is infinitely preferable to the suggestion that some kid playing cricket in a cricket ground should be penalised for belting a six.

But the kid isn't being penalized. Any kid could just as easily have some sort of expensive accident elsewhere, take your pick of any number of scenarios, and his parents would be held accountable for damages. The fact is he damaged someone else's property, maliciously or not is not the question here, he is still responsible for causing said damage. He shouldn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card because his parents decided to make a media stink while shirking their responsibilities. How will he ever learn accountability?

God help him if he has to go through his entire life fearful of the fact that even when he's doing everything right (practicing cricket in a cricket ground, and belting a six), there's an element in society these days intent on forcing absurd lessons on "accountability" down his throat - based on some perversion of "personal responsibility" ideology.
TBH - it's probably the cause of half of the delinquency these days - rejection of "helicopter" authoritarianism. If some kids go off the rails - then perhaps that's a reason why.
I certainly would have told AA people exactly which part of their anatomy would have been a great place to stick their "bill". Insurance companies - LOL - they should never be mentioned in the same paragraph as "lessons in morality" IMO. They may be necessary - but they certainly are an evil.

Look, I'm a little bit over the conversation now, but it seems you are missing the point I am making: the kid isn't being penalized, his parents would be paying for the damage. The kid, in the process, learns that his actions have consequences - regardless of how well-intentioned and non-malicious they may or may not have been. Except now in this case, the lessons he has taken away from all this are the following:

1. He shouldn't have to pay for 'accidents' - that's what insurance is for, right?
2. Making a fuss to the media will get him out a tight spot, especially when going up against a large company where the masses can bay for blood
3. Getting a lawyer involved and making a public scene should be your first course of action rather than settling misunderstandings quietly with all parties involved

I'm being melodramatic, of course. Be that as it may, it seems we're not going to agree. I do however take your point and therefore bow out. :)

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#997722 2-Mar-2014 19:10

Demeter:

Look, I'm a little bit over the conversation now, but it seems you are missing the point I am making: the kid isn't being penalized, his parents would be paying for the damage. The kid, in the process, learns that his actions have consequences

There's a truly vital things in relation to this thread that you've missed.
He did nothing wrong. Yet you apparently want to ram down the poor kid's throat that his (correct) actions should have negative consequences - as "a lesson". As a lesson for what purpose?
It's beyond me to see any logic in what you say - and the world (fortunately) hasn't gone as crazy as you seem to wish.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#997731 2-Mar-2014 19:25

Fred99:
Demeter:

Look, I'm a little bit over the conversation now, but it seems you are missing the point I am making: the kid isn't being penalized, his parents would be paying for the damage. The kid, in the process, learns that his actions have consequences

There's a truly vital things in relation to this thread that you've missed.
He did nothing wrong. Yet you apparently want to ram down the poor kid's throat that his (correct) actions should have negative consequences - as "a lesson". As a lesson for what purpose?
It's beyond me to see any logic in what you say - and the world (fortunately) hasn't gone as crazy as you seem to wish.

goodness gracious can you not see what Demeter is saying or are you not willing to. No one is saying he did anything wrong it was an accident, right, but there are still consequences but in this case there isn't as its been fobbed off .

This young person has learnt that he need not take responsibility of his actions, no one is saying he should be punished for goodness sakes but if you damage something then you are at fault and need to take ownership of it.

If this was your car and you didn't have insurance would accept it was your price to pay if so I think this conversation is going in circles and nothing more to be gained in discussing further

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#997737 2-Mar-2014 19:29

As much as I don't like it I pay $2200 a year for car insurance . I presume the people arguing the kid should pay for the damage don't purchase insurance. I for one don't mind that money to be spent on other clients whose kids make genuine mistakes. Balls hit windows and people learn from mistakes, especially kids. The kids fronted up to the adult, quite a big thing these days on it's own. I'd rather see the Kids out playing cricket than sitting at home being scared of the litigation that might take place if he were to hit a ball.
Sure they need personal responsibility and it looks like the kids in question have it, if everyone had personal responsibility the motorist would not have parked where the ball might hit the car, the council would have insisted on huge fences and the ratepayers would have said no to the stadium in the first place.
This, as an AA insurance customer , is a "classic case" of where insurance should pay out.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#997740 2-Mar-2014 19:38

turnin: As much as I don't like it I pay $2200 a year for car insurance . I presume the people arguing the kid should pay for the damage don't purchase insurance. I for one don't mind that money to be spent on other clients whose kids make genuine mistakes. Balls hit windows and people learn from mistakes, especially kids. The kids fronted up to the adult, quite a big thing these days on it's own. I'd rather see the Kids out playing cricket than sitting at home being scared of the litigation that might take place if he were to hit a ball.
Sure they need personal responsibility and it looks like the kids in question have it, if everyone had personal responsibility the motorist would not have parked where the ball might hit the car, the council would have insisted on huge fences and the ratepayers would have said no to the stadium in the first place.
This, as an AA insurance customer , is a "classic case" of where insurance should pay out.

you presume wrong I've been paying insurance on everything I own since I was 18.

"the kid"wouldn't pay, obviously, but for his parents to think the insurance company should is just arrogant

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#997744 2-Mar-2014 19:43

I think the issue here is not well understood. You are not liable for damage to someone else's property unless the damage was caused by negligence. While it's a fairly vague concept, someone practicing cricket in a normal manner at a cricket ground is not being negligent, therefore is not liable for damage. If he had hit the ball from his house, or had deliberately whacked a ball at a car it could be shown that he was being negligent and therefore liable.

I experienced a similar issue last year. My neighbours tree fell through the fence in a storm and damaged my house. Because it was not caused by negligence, even though it was his property that damaged mine. My insurance company was pretty clear about it, as was my solicitor. It's not anyone's fault, it is a true accident so you are liable for any damage to your own property. If you read the article this is the conclusion the insurance company came to in the end.

Kim587

128 posts

Master Geek

#997748 2-Mar-2014 19:49

jeffnz:
Fred99:
Demeter:

Look, I'm a little bit over the conversation now, but it seems you are missing the point I am making: the kid isn't being penalized, his parents would be paying for the damage. The kid, in the process, learns that his actions have consequences

There's a truly vital things in relation to this thread that you've missed.
He did nothing wrong. Yet you apparently want to ram down the poor kid's throat that his (correct) actions should have negative consequences - as "a lesson". As a lesson for what purpose?
It's beyond me to see any logic in what you say - and the world (fortunately) hasn't gone as crazy as you seem to wish.

goodness gracious can you not see what Demeter is saying or are you not willing to. No one is saying he did anything wrong it was an accident, right, but there are still consequences but in this case there isn't as its been fobbed off .

This young person has learnt that he need not take responsibility of his actions, no one is saying he should be punished for goodness sakes but if you damage something then you are at fault and need to take ownership of it.

If this was your car and you didn't have insurance would accept it was your price to pay if so I think this conversation is going in circles and nothing more to be gained in discussing further

I have two problems with your argument:
1. You assume that the only way for a kid to learn responsibility is to have to pay the bill for genuine accidents they cause. I do not accept this. I think the main part of responsibility is owning up to your own actions, which it seems pretty obvious has happened here-these kids did own up. That's called taking responsibility.
2. It is the insurance company's job to pay for genuine actions covered by their policies. Otherwise what's the point of having insurance companies and paying them huge premiums, if they're just going to send the bill to whoever caused the damage-you might as well just pay an hourly rate to a mediator to sort out who pays the bill whenever someone damages your property.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#997753 2-Mar-2014 19:55

jeffnz:
turnin: As much as I don't like it I pay $2200 a year for car insurance . I presume the people arguing the kid should pay for the damage don't purchase insurance. I for one don't mind that money to be spent on other clients whose kids make genuine mistakes. Balls hit windows and people learn from mistakes, especially kids. The kids fronted up to the adult, quite a big thing these days on it's own. I'd rather see the Kids out playing cricket than sitting at home being scared of the litigation that might take place if he were to hit a ball.
Sure they need personal responsibility and it looks like the kids in question have it, if everyone had personal responsibility the motorist would not have parked where the ball might hit the car, the council would have insisted on huge fences and the ratepayers would have said no to the stadium in the first place.
This, as an AA insurance customer , is a "classic case" of where insurance should pay out.

you presume wrong I've been paying insurance on everything I own since I was 18.

"the kid"wouldn't pay, obviously, but for his parents to think the insurance company should is just arrogant

Help me escape from my arrogance then, explain why should the insurance company not pay out ?

Mek7

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

#998504 3-Mar-2014 23:09

I assume AA held the kid liable because they didn't have his parents details? AA should never have attempted recovery from the boy or his family though, the lawyer uncles defence is not quite right and AA backed down because someone who knew what they were doing reviewed the claim. Funnily enough the kids mum was the closest to a correct defence.

There is a legal defence for situations like this which claims/recovery staff should be aware of called Volenti non fit injuria in the Latin which means "to a willing person, injury is not done". Basically if you knowingly expose your property to a potential risk you can't then hold someone liable if that risk then damages your property. There are legal precedents for this.

So at a cricket ground it's a fairly safe bet that at some stage a cricket ball may be hit beyond the confines, so if you then park your vehicle at the grounds you are acknowledging that there is a chance your vehicle may be damaged and you take on this risk. The same thing goes for golf clubs and the like.

As an aside though you can hold the parents of a minor liable for their actions but it's a case by case kinda thing. Most contents policies have a liability clause (typically $1mil's worth) built into them for situations where a individual, rather than say a car causes damaged to someone else's property.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4