Should a child be billed for a accident?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#998667 4-Mar-2014 11:32

OK, if the kid, or accident causer, is responsible for paying for damage caused by accidents what is the point of insurance?

If there is genuine negligence or ill-intent that's a different story but in this case there doesn't seem to be either.

If we were all held directly liable (not accountable or responsible) for accidents there wouldn't be a point to insurance. Even with Acts Of God such as weather it could be argued that correct preparation could have mitigated damage.

We either get insurance to pay for stuff or we hand things over to lawyers and use the courts to apportion liability.

Simple choice and I know which way I'd go.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

trig42

5891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2096

ID Verified

#998689 4-Mar-2014 11:59

Handle9: 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.

This, no more, no less.

The 15 year old was not negligent, therefore not liable. He did the right thing by owning up to the owner of the car. The insurance company (surprise surprise) did the wrong thing by chasing him for it. His parents also did the wrong thing by going to the press about it. The insurance company would (should) have waived it as soon as they realized that he was not negligent.

JimmyCorrigan

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#998733 4-Mar-2014 12:44

Somehow, this story was almost the entire front page of the Dominion Post on Saturday, complete with a large photo of the miserable looking 15yr old (and cricket gear).
Was this really the most important story they had to run? Sure, it might warrant reporting, but the whole front page seems a little excessive. Plus the parents go the outcome they wanted: take it to the paper, insurance company changes their mind. Fair Go would be jealous…)

This was followed up by yesterday’s entire front page (‘Police Shame. Mother Forced to Turn Detective’) and hot-on-the-heels of last week’s “3D Printers: Guns and Gold” (paraphrasing) headlines.

Is it just my imagination, or has the Dominion Post suddenly transformed in a tabloid, replete with attention grabbing headlines? Is physical circulation really that low? Or have they had a string of really slow news days of late?

For some reason I thought they were better than that. I guess not.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#998741 4-Mar-2014 12:59

@JimmyCorrigan

Dude, seriously, you are disappointed with the reporting in an newspaper?

I'm impressed that they still survive in this country without resorting to the kinds of things which shut News of The World.

I just don't know what newspapers are for. I'd say it has been over five years since I bought one and I work in a job where being informed of what is going on in the media gets me paid.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

JimmyCorrigan

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#998766 4-Mar-2014 13:13

Well, @crackrdbycracku, I am a current subscriber, so maybe my continual exposure is starting to show.

You clearly think I am quite naive to expect this, although I do not work a job where being informed of what is going on in the media gets me paid, so what do I know.

In essence, I am disapointed that they seem to have recently embraced an agenda of slightly hysterical and sensationalistic story prioritisation. I'd prefer it to be a little less Fox News!

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#998776 4-Mar-2014 13:26

@JimmyCorrigan

I don't think you are naive really, I was over the top and for that I apologise.

I have simply been disappointed with newspapers since the 1990s.

This kind of coverage is exactly what I would have expected from a newspaper. Put the young person on the front page in their cricket gear, because it will appeal to emotions and emotions sell papers.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I doubt the story that went with the photo could be described as 'balanced', right?

Or to put it another way: Aside from our current thread-jacking I would imagine you would get better debate and a better analysis of the issues on here at Geekzone than you would from 'professional reporters'.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#998794 4-Mar-2014 13:31

JimmyCorrigan: Well, @crackrdbycracku, I am a current subscriber, so maybe my continual exposure is starting to show.

You clearly think I am quite naive to expect this, although I do not work a job where being informed of what is going on in the media gets me paid, so what do I know.

In essence, I am disapointed that they seem to have recently embraced an agenda of slightly hysterical and sensationalistic story prioritisation. I'd prefer it to be a little less Fox News!

The front page story is usually a story to either hook people into buying paper or clicking on the story. It is not usually about the most important news story, as most of the most important stories are either boring or already reported by other means. So the front page story is often a 'scoop' for that particular paper, which can't be read elsewhere. Exceptions are big news stories.

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#998796 4-Mar-2014 13:34

JimmyCorrigan: Is it just my imagination, or has the Dominion Post suddenly transformed in a tabloid, replete with attention grabbing headlines?

Not at all sudden.

JimmyCorrigan

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#998808 4-Mar-2014 13:41

@crackrdbycracku

Yes, you make excellent points, including my thread-jack. (Just wanted to give it some additional context).

Many years ago I saw Noam Chomsky doco called 'Manufacturing Consent' and it explored extensively the way in which stories were picked and spun. It seemed like a rest-of-the-world problem, but it seems to have proliferated here in recent years as you say.

Right, jacking over, i promise!

JimmyCorrigan

49 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#998811 4-Mar-2014 13:44

@mattwnz

Yes i agree. The quality of this 'scoop' is pretty poor though.

Bad point of comparison, but it is unlikely One News would lead with an insurance claim against a 15 yr old. TV3 might though.... (kidding!)

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#998817 4-Mar-2014 13:56

Being the Dominion Post I am suprised they didn't some how get into the story it was the governments fault that he hit the ball in the direction of the car in the first place.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

floydbloke

3649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4557

ID Verified

#998833 4-Mar-2014 14:16

crackrdbycracku: @

I just don't know what newspapers are for.

The DomPost? The five-minute quiz and the crosswords.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#999273 5-Mar-2014 09:47

trig42: The 15 year old was not negligent, therefore not liable. He did the right thing by owning up to the owner of the car. The insurance company (surprise surprise) did the wrong thing by chasing him for it. His parents also did the wrong thing by going to the press about it. The insurance company would (should) have waived it as soon as they realized that he was not negligent.

I disagree the parents did the wrong thing going to the media. At least now more people are educated about their rights and responsibilities. The insurance companies probably just send these letters out in the knowledge a certain percentage of people will just pay without questioning it. If the media attention disrupts that practise, then I say that's a good thing.

In the insurance companies defence, there's every chance the kids age wasn't recorded in the claim. They probably just kicked off their "send scary letter demanding payment" process assuming it was an adult they were chasing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4