To pay or not to pay?

[Alwayschanging1]

WWYD?
Y11 Boys at school playing football in the playgound. Boy 1 kicks the ball at boy 2 who is holding a phone. Phone is knocked out of boy 2's hand and screen breaks. Should Boy 1 cover the cost of the repair?

[Bruce02]

Was boy 2 playing football or stood at the side?

If he wasn't playing football and stood to the side, did boy 1 kick it at him on purpose?

[LIZS]

Was boy2 playing or just a bystander?

[Alwayschanging1]

Apparently kicking the ball at each other is part of the game. Boy 1 did not know boy 2 was holding his phone. Nothing malicious, just an accident.

[OhNoNotMyBaby]

No. It was a playground accident. No malicious intent - just an accident.

[Fluffyears]

Was it deliberately kicked at him or did it accidentally hit him? In either case boy 1 should pay as it was boy 2's fault.

Example, my friend when younger was swinging s golf club round his head and accidentally let go. It smashed a windscreen, his dad had to pay for it as it was his fault for swinging the club not the vehicle owner for being parked. In this case if boy 2 is just using his phone and someone hits him with a ball that is not his fault. Hope they makes sense I'm tired!

[Phillipa12]

I would offer a contribution towards the accident as that is what it was.

[PirateFairy45]

Is the phone insured?

Honesty I probably would pay the insurance excess but I'm a soft ass.

[Fluffyears]

Wasn't boy 2's fault. Dies he gave insurance?

[Alwayschanging1]

The ball was kicked at boy 2 as part of the game, but not to hurt him or damage the phone. There are no problems between the boys - they are friends.

[Bruce02]

So boy 2 was actually playing football with his phone in his hand? I would probably contribute something but not 2 should not have been playing football with his phone in his hand.

I am fully aware that in football people kick the ball to each other.

However your said boy 1 kicked the at boy 2. Which could be different to kicking a ball to boy 2.

[Noodledoodledoo]

If boy 2 was involved in the game he shouldn't have his phone out so boy 1 shouldn't pay. If he wasn't involved in the game and the ball was kicked at him then boy 1 should pay.

[Alwayschanging1]

Boy 1 admits kicking the ball 'at' boy 2, which he says they always do and is part of the game. So it was not a normal football pass. But it was a normal thing for the boys to do to each other.

[NoFucksImAQueen]

Yeah like everyone else has said was he playing or just stood with his mates? You seem to be skirting around the question

[BettySwollocksandaCrustyRack]

Totally boy 2's fault, he shouldn't have had the phone in his hand. Boy 1 should not have to contribute at all.

[BewtySkoolDropowt]

But was boy 2 playing.

Oh nvm. I'm guessing not as op isn't answering the question. In that case boy 1 should pay.

[atticusclaw2]

I wouldn't be entirely sure that Boy 1 is telling the truth. Kicking a ball "at" someone is not usually part of football and surely if Boy 2 was expecting to have the ball kicked at him (which he would be if Boy 1 was telling the truth) then he wouldn't have his phone in his hand.

[JennyOnAPlate]

It all depends whether boy 2 was playing football with his phone in his hand or if boy 1 just decided to lob a ball at him while he was standing looking at his phone.

[mrsm43s]

Surely accident or not (and it does certainly seem like an unfortunate accident), boy 1 should pay - he broke the phone!

If someone accidentally crashed into my car and damaged it, I would still expect them to pay to repair it, despite it being accidental.

I find people's lack of accountability for their own/their children's actions really horrifying. Surely you shouldn't have to ask - regardless of circumstance, you break, you fix (or pay to have fixed).

[Alwayschanging1]

Not skirting any questions - I don't know if boy 2 was in the game and right now the boys are in school so I can't ask them.

[Berthatydfil]

Kicking footballs "at" each other sounds a stupid game and intentionally designed to hurt or possibly damage property like specs phones etc. Is the point of the "game" to kick the ball at another boy when they aren't expecting it in order to surprise or hurt them?
How far away was he?
How hard did he kick it?
A football kicked hard at close range can really hurt and if it is really a "game" it sounds really stupid.
It's also the kind of thing that can be used to hide bullying ....awwee it was only a game !
What is the other boys take on it?
Does he agree?
How much is the phone repair ?
I suspect you are boy 1's mum and wonder if he's told you his account of the incident in order to minimise the fall out.
I think boy 1 should pay at least half but depending on further information maybe all of it.

[ThatGingerOne]

Why did the kid have his phone out in the playground? Usually not allowed even in high schools. I wouldn't pay - it was an accident.

[Alwayschanging1]

I can see both sides:
Boy 1: did kick the ball at boy 2 and cause the accident.

Boy 2: was using the phone in the playground close to or in a football game. Phone use is not allowed in school hours (presumably for reasons like this) so boy 2 was not supposed to be on his phone.

[saoirse31]

Accident from what u say. No payment needed. If I have phone in school you mind it.

[Alwayschanging1]

Please don't imply there is bullying going on - there isn't. The boys are friends. This was a genuine accident.

[atticusclaw2]

MrsM is right though. Accident or not, if you break something you pay, or at least offer a significant contribution. The car example is completely spot on. Intention to damage is really not the point.