Child vs car

7 year old child has run into a car on our culdesac, much ado about nothing realy minor dent but car owner is well known for being a complete and utter idiot and parking his 6 cars outside his and the neighbouring housis parents are saying child isnt liable for damage , he says it needs settling, what does STW say, should it go before judge judy or a proper legal team.

Parents paying for the damage is the only reasonable option.

it might be reasonable but if the parents weren’t negligent, they have no legal requirement to do so. if they let a 3 year old child run out, negligence is probably there (most parents hold the hands of 3 year olds whilst walking along a road) but at 7? don’t think so

…and breath. This kinda problem ain’t gonna get solved here on the inter webs. De-escalation needed and a calm chat.

Surely if it’s your child you are responsible for the damage they caused.

Source

The Mum who paid for my new trousers when her 15 year old son put super glue all over my chair at the front of the class room.

I am a teacher, not some weirdo wandering into classrooms uninvited 😳

She made her son get a job to pay her back. He was still some what lacking in educational motivation when he left a year later.

Just to be clear I can’t imagine your 7 year old caused the damage on purpose, nor am I suggesting you send them out to get a job.

What’s the dents away type cost?  Legalities aside I’d feel bad leaving someone with a bill for the actions/accidents of my kids.  Covering the excess / third party cover under household insurance would be my starting point.

The fact the “victim” may be seen as a bit of a weapon isn’t  really relevant assuming the car isn’t on the pavement and the damage isn’t on the bit that was on the pavement.

Was the car parked at time was it parked on road not half on pavement as seems to be the norm in residential areas now. Would home insurance cover this

edit wot he said ^

Was the cwr legally parked?  Years ago i put a motorcycle into a car.  The car was illegally parked thus i had no liability .

If thr car was on the pavement then id tell them to do one

Surely if it’s your child you are responsible for the damage they caused.

nope.

Unless you have been negligent in some way. I cannot see a no-win-no-fee solicitor wanting to go the distance on this in court though for a “minor dent” though 😂

So 100% depends on whether OP wishes to remain on good terms with said bell-end neighbour, or if not fussed then just tell them that’s what insurance is for 🤣

Was the car parked at time was it parked on road not half on pavement

although this would be a very interesting nuance!!

Is this vehicle in question taxed , motd and insured? And on its own policy not under the umbrella of a trade policy , of late they have been tightened up to stop multiple cars being kept on the road.
If not , then I wouldn’t pay as it shouldn’t be there.

Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.

We paid.

I think the correct response is…no.

Matt – is your eldest still on the naughty step?

Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.

Damian Hurst? No problem

Mini Moab? No pudding

Where’s the justice?

As far as I am aware I dont have a 7 year old , car was parked on land the kids play on , well whenever he hasnt got his 3 other cars parked there being serviced or in some state of being stripped then reassembled

I am indifferent really, just wondered where public opinion would land.

How much damage can a child do to a car? If you leave a car lying around in a street it’s bound to get some wear and tear?  If it’s still perfectly functional then he should stop fussing and forget about it.

Difficult one, but I would not pay if:

Car was badly parked e.g. on pavement, riggt up to junctions, driveways etc.

Car could be on driveway to prevent damage but wasn’t. He clearly doesn’t care that much about car if he cannot be bothered to use drive.

As I have no legal obligation to, and he seems like a d**k then I would be one as well!! 🙂

I love my cars. I love my kids more.  If my kids damaged my cars or any vehicle on the public highway it would be an accident. Vehicles are insured for such events. Kids are not. It’s not America. Own a car, don’t want it exposed to the risk of damage through an accident then put it in a garage in an inflated dehumidified tent, don’t park it on the road, where kids play. End of.

When my granddad was a child he had job working for the neighbouring chip shop, not at night when they were serving but in the morning, cleaning and resetting fire in the coal-fuelled range / frier before he went to school.

One morning – by one means or another – he managed to burn the whole place down. Leaving the owner without a business or a home. The whole thing ended up in court and my great grandmother, as the parent, was deemed liable the guy’s losses. Nobody involved had any kind of insurance or the means the pay to cover the loss so it was determined by the court that as compensation she had to cook the chipshop owner his supper, every night, for the rest of his life.

she had to cook the chipshop owner his supper, every night, for the rest of his life

Sounds a bit fishy to me. I bet the lad got battered and put firmly in his plaice. The poor wee scampi

If the car owner is a nice reasonable person… pay up.

If he’s a total waaaaaaka and parked in a stupid place where it was predictable it wouldhappen,  I’d tell him to feckrightorf and that he needs to try suing the 7 year old. He won’t get far with that.

Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m  sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!

Some questionable morals in here tonight….

Lack of detail of how the car was damaged.

If a car is parked, legally or not, if someone damages it, they pay for it. There’s never an excuse or reason to damage a stationary object.

Obviously, kids can be idiots, but that’s when parents step up and pay.

Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m  sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!

Some questionable morals in here tonight….

Very much this

A child under this persons care accidentally damages the property of another.

Unless there were significant extenuating circumstances it’s their responsibility. The keyboard lawyers can try and find a way to say it’s not that person’s ‘legal’ responsibility and they want, but back in the real world of common sense and moral responsibility, it just is.

This is what 3rd party liability on your home insurance is for.

The owner of the car sounds a bit of a cock. That makes it an even harder pill to swallow, but doesn’t change the deal.

If a car is parked, legally or not, if someone damages it, they pay for it.

Nope – if its illegally parked you may not have to.  I crashed my motorcycle and it slid into a parked car.  because the car was parked illegally ( too close to a junction) I did not have to pay.  whether this would apply in this sort of case I do not know but the positioning of the vehicle and its legality is pertinent.  Say the kid is running along the pavement and trips and falls into a car that is parked blocking the pavement?

Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.

We paid.

Paying your own kid for their artwork sets unreasonable expectations IMHO.

Matt – is your eldest still on the naughty step?

Damn right.

He was three at the time.

He’s 22 now.

To add, as a child I put a sizable dent in the roof of two cars. The first was as a 3 year old throwing stones under the supervision of my dad – one went wildly out of control and landed on a car 180 degrees from the direction I was aiming. Dad paid up. The second was about 12 years later playing cricket. An actual match on an actual pitch and this bloke parks right on the boundary. We didn’t pay up for that one………though I ‘might’ have been aiming for it…..way too tempting.

The kid’s caused damage to someone’s property, the parents should be paying to make good.  It’s no different from hoofing a football through their window.  Comments like how the owner is “a complete and utter idiot and parking his 6 cars outside his and the neighbouring housis” is emotive curtain-twitching nonsense and not relevant to anything, he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things.  Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?

How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?

This is what 3rd party liability on your home insurance is for.

Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you’re liable. In this case you are not., so it would not pay out

This is what first party insurance is for, if you have things that kids might damage which you care about

Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you’re liable. In this case you are not

But the third party is.  Clue is in the name there.

I wonder if some people’s opinions and ideals about transport methods are clouding their judgement here. “I don’t like cars so I’ll take side with anyone who’s causing bother to cars and car owners”.

But the third party is.  Clue is in the name there.

sometimes people can be too cocky. Third party is actually the person (or other entity) making the claim against the insured.

OP is making little sense tbh, so hard to reach a conclusion. Like,

car was parked on land the kids play on

what does this mean? What land? Who owns it?

Maybe a diagram would help 🤣

sometimes people can be too cocky. Third party is actually the person (or other entity) making the claim against the insured.

“Third party” is a relative term, no?  The car owner and the child owner are third parties to each other.

How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?

that’s the real question raised by this thread, with a supplementary – how hard do they have to hit it to leave lasting damage?

he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things. Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?

I’m deliberately quoting selectively here. Assuming we’re talking busy urban/suburban areas, why should we allow public roads to get clogged up by someone effectively using public space as “free storage” for their personal possessions?

If someone doesn’t have enough private garage or drive space, they shouldnt be allowed to own a second vehicle unless they pay for a parking permit.

Nobody is under any obligation as a pedestrian or a cyclist to carry any form of insurance.  Whether they be a child, uncoordinated teenager or adult.

Say one of you lot rode into the front of my Alfa when it parked outside of Lidl. Bonnet’s £15000 ( yes fifteen thousand), front bumper £3000, headlight. £800. Front spoiler £4k. £6k with all the motors and fitting. Paint?  Well time to sell the house ‘cos painting and matching Automotive carbon properly so it doesn’t fall off in 6 months time is comedy expensive. You seriously expect me to take that from you or your kid’s pocket money? Yeah right, it’s not 1952. Get yourself a paper round and a skelp ‘round the lugs. That’s why I’m insured. It’s not my liability but my insurance will pick up the tab. I’d be sad and annoyed, but that’s life.

I wonder if some people’s opinions and ideals about transport methods are clouding their judgement here. “I don’t like cars so I’ll take side with anyone who’s causing bother to cars and car owners”.

Cars are always going to be a special case.

We have no other possession that we expect to leave in public spaces and that space effectively becomes part of our property.

Kids have a right to explore and play.  It’s part of how we grow into functioning adults.  Sometimes that’s going to lead to shit getting damaged.

Cars ownership (or rather, the lobbying of the car industry) has been the single biggest damaging thing to our communities in the last 100 years.

So yeah, kids being kids should be prioritised over supporting the thinking that led to our car dominated society.  There’s a certain expectation that kids should learn to stay away from private property.  Therefore if a kid  breaks a window then that kid has broken the social agreement by taking too many risks near someone else’s property.

Cars are **** everywhere.  It’s unreasonable to leave kids with no area that they can play in which is what car owners do.

If you don’t want your car damaged, don’t leave it in the kids’ spaces.

Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you’re liable. In this case you are not., so it would not pay out

This is what first party insurance is for, if you have things that kids might damage which you care about

I suggest you go do some reading.