To expect Mum to pay up after 4YO child scratched every panel on our car

[LupoLoopy]

Context: My wife works at a nursery school as an assistant.. Her car was parked in the staff car park, which the kids egress though when they leave, under parental supervision.

During lunch time pick-up, one of the departing 4 year old's took a rock and scratched every panel and light fixture on her car, all whilst his Mum was standing within 6M of the car, chatting to a friend.

The incident was captured on CCTV.

The cost of a proper repair is so close to the value of the car, I fear it being written off, which is something we could afford but would hurt us a lot financially.

Although the damage is only cosmetic, the car was pristine before the incident (I'm a fussy sod who takes good care of his stuff) and I don't see why we should tolerate driving a 'shed' around 'for the children'.

We're trying to seek restitution from the School's insurance (if it will cover it) but to cover our butts, we've reported the incident to the police (so and official record exists) and reported it to our insurer.

If we have to use our car insurance AND we're fortunate enough to not have the car written off, it's going to tank my partners insurance premiums.

Frankly, I want to encourage the police to be fully involved and start proceedings immediately for civil action via the small claims court. I just dont think I can have confidence that Mum is going to be wired in the same way I am - i.e. it's her liability and don't see why we should be financially crippled by her parental inattention.

AIBU?

I think it's interesting that the CAB have used the bike example. It's possibly more misleading as a result because children on bikes are more likely to require close supervision at a very young age while cycling or learning to cycle & that's the angle that can be used to argue that the lack of close parental supervision can be directly linked to the child then having a wobble or just cycling straight at a parked car. That's the only situation I can recall where I've paid a claim & it was specifically because the child was on a bike with the parent too far behind to stop the collision when the child loses some control.

It's always possible the OP could be the person who gets the case won that establishes a precedent in these situations but he'd be the one who would have to take the risk financially to go that far. I've had cases which as a company we wouldn't take the financial risk on but someone with deep pockets could, and did, succeed. It ultimately comes down to whether the OP feels strongly enough about getting what he sees as the right & proper outcome & how far he'll go to get that, irrespective of the cost involved in getting there.

Tensions DD was 5 years old.
We were out for a walk both dcs on their bikes. DS 7 and DD 5. Were were on a long road with cars parked half up on the pavement, it is a quiet side road .

DC rode off along the pavement ahead of me. DS was ahead and dd inbetween us. I didnt see the actually incident, but dd stopped to let a couple who had just parked to cross the pavement, then i think she went to set off and the bike wobbled and the bike fell against the car scratch along side it.

Insurance company said i was negligent so they paid out.

In the above case the op is talking instead of keeping an eye on what her ds is doing and seems a much more straight forward case of negligence.

I would say to the OP, though is my insurers insisted on talking to their insurances. My insurers (legal and general) were brilliant and handled everything, and took a huge amount of stress out of the situation.

Myinlaws - potentially yes, I wasn't interested in the money side, didn't even look at the posts on it. I expect the question would be whether the insurance should then seek money from mum and whether paying the excess is really his only loss...

cleo unless insurers have someone else to claim from it will go down as a fault accident, they cannot claim from the toddler so OPs premiums would take the brunt

Some absolute shite spouted on this thread. You are required to notify insurers within 48hrs typically of a reportable incident or potential claim, and in cases of damage like this (or even loss of jewellery or similar) they will always ask for a crime ref no. You're not "lawyering up" or overreacting, you're just doing what you're told! I can easily see how repairs could get to that figure (although a verbal quotation given without seeing the damage is generally going to be on the higher-side) and geography will play a part in this too. I'd guess you'll have gone to somewhere well known near you, and yes there's a chance if you go to a smaller/independent repair shop it might be cheaper. But it'll be interesting to see what the initial quote is.

I would encourage your wife to get a copy of the cctv if she can. This will be key if you do decide to take action against the parents as it will show in real time how long the child was away from his guardian and how he was able to inflict what sounds like considerable damage over all elevations of the car without being noticed. That's more than a moment's distraction on the part of the mother and will be important.

I would be surprised if the school's insurance did consider the matter as you would have to prove negligence on their part. As the child had been placed back into the care of his mum at the time of the incident I don't think this argument would stand up.

It may well be that the mother is reasonable or sensible like you and say, "I'll inform my insurers and let them deal with it". But if it isn't then I would be pursuing the matter further. At nine, DP threw a stone at a conservatory of a local restaurant and the po-po came round to give him a good talking to and told him that if he did it again he'd be going to prison. His parents did pay for the damage without issue but the figures weren't in the the thousands!

OP
Some of the replies in your direction on this thread have got my back up, the fact that you've stayed so calm and collected is admirable IMO.

As I've just posted bruffin, your case is likely one that would be paid. Incidentally, had it been your 7 yr old & not your 5 yr old, it might not had been as straight forward!

It's not actually more negligent in the OP's case for the mother to be talking & not seeing/watching her child. It comes down to what is foreseeable & what isn't - in the case of a 5 yr old on a bike, it foreseeable that they may not be as confident/competent & bikes can cause more damage than a child alone falling into a parked car. In the OP's case, unless the child had a habit of scratching cars with a stone, then it's not really foreseeable that the child would pick up a stone & scratch the car. It's too much of a leap to say she should have known he/she would do that & would therefore be deemed negligent for failing to act to prevent her child doing something she was fully aware he/she was likely to do.

Again, it all comes down to the individual circumstances & if there was enough to place liability on the parent then every ins co would follow through chase that parent for the money and/or their household ins details. But, in this case, my opinion is there isn't enough to put the blame on the parent legally even if everyone feels that she should accept the blame morally.

Craicdealer put it much better than me

" it will show in real time how long the child was away from his guardian and how he was able to inflict what sounds like considerable damage over all elevations of the car without being noticed. That's more than a moment's distraction on the part of the mother and will be important. "

I thought the way it worked was:

• you tell your insurance & give them the details of the at-fault party
• they organise repairs
• they pay for repairs, less any excess (which you have to pay, and which will depend on your individual policy)
• the insurance co. may then choose to try and recoup their losses from the other party.
• if the cost of the repairs is less than your excess, you're better off getting it fixed without claiming on your insurance.

The only thing you can personally pursue the at-fault party for is any excess you've paid (or, in the last scenario, the entire cost).

You can't choose to just not use your insurance and make the at-fault party fork out thousands. (See 'mitigating your losses', above.)

Your premiums shouldn't go up if you're not at fault. If they do, well, that's the insurance you bought. You could pursue the at-fault party in small claims court for the cost of your insurance hike. Not sure how far you'd get.

This is how it worked, as far as I remember, when a truck changed lanes into the side of my car. (Am not in UK though.)

And whether the mother was momentarily distracted or not isn't that relevant.

It was a car park. Would have been more than relevant if someone had knocked the child over.

You absolutely can choose to not use your insurance and just pursue the other party directly. Most people choose not to do this due to the low rate of success.

Also the premiums go up if you make a claim and your insurer do not recover the money they paid out. Fault is irrelevant.
I currently work in a related industry.

Also the premiums go up if you make a claim and your insurer do not recover the money they paid out and in the case of admiral they go up if they recover the claim as well. They don't even handle the claims themselves, they outsource this to another company if it is no fault, who are a nightmare to talk to and we ended up with compensation because we spent a fortune on phone calls

Yes - the low rate of success being due to the at-fault party declining to pay out 8 grand.

Then you take them to court.

Then the court says 'use your insurance'.

Obviously you can choose to do whatever you want - but effectively you can't 'choose' to just make the other party pay if a) they don't want to, and b) it's unenforceable.

No they don't. The court would make a judgment in your favour if appropriate and you'd spend the next 30 years fucking around with baillifs and getting £5 month. In the countless court cases I've dealt with the court has never said use your insurance, there's no requirement to.

Righto. So then we come back around to, why would you bother doing that when you could use your insurance?

I just don't see the benefit in time or money, to the insured party.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, I'm just not seeing why anyone is recommending the OP bypasses his insurance.

I guess it wouldn't be a first option for many because of the massively increased premiums. The insurer are unlikely to put much time and effort into getting the money back.
I'd be wanting to exhaust the other insurance options before resorting to it - school first then failing that the mother's household insurance.

OP - possibly useful information for you here. I work for a law firm and am almost through with a law degree.

There is an established tort where a person can be held liable for damage caused by a third party for whom they are responsible if there is a special relationship. A special relationship includes that of a parent and child. Cases for this include Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis (a child was unsupervised by a nursery nurse for about ten minutes and ran out into the main road causing a collision) and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Company (some borstal boys were working at a docks and were left unsupervised at night - they stole a boat and crashed it into a yacht).

Because Mum was there and should have been observing the child as per Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis - and no Court would state that a three year old does not require close supervision - and s/he caused the damage to the car whilst being unsupervised, it is reasonably to assume that the damage to the car would not be unforseeable. Therefore, you have a very good case for Mum being legally responsible.

Even if she cannot pay the entire amount, she may be able to pay part. I would also say that it's amazing the number of people who "absolutely cannot get that sort of money, we don't have two beans to rub together" yet once there is a judgement against them pay up in full very quickly and with relative ease...

Myinlaws, It's pretty easy to foresee a car park as a place you might consider holding a child's hand rather than letting them tear around as if it is soft play.