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?

In his school that is...I don't know about OP's kid's school obviously.

I would CHECK if the parents have insurance for the phone (which they should!) before paying... don't want to be 'paying' twice!

So Boy2 is to blame because "he shouldn't have had his phone out on the playground while they're playing football"?
That sounds suspiciously like "it's your fault you got mugged, you shouldn't have been out on your own at that time."

I don't think analogy works at all. Going out at a particular time is not a banned activity. Having your phone during school hours is.

Almost every time I read a post I agree with it. You can't all be right...
I think I have decided that boy 1 should be expected to pay for the phone because the bottom line is he should not be kicking balls at people. He's lucky boy 2 wasn't hurt - if he had hurt boy 2 he would have been in trouble at school. He got lucky it was just the phone that was damaged.
Maybe next time he will think twice before wellying a ball at someone.

There is fault on both sides. Whether a contribution should be offered is debatable, but it would be a nice thing to do, especially for a friend.

I'm with you OP. It was a deliberate act (if not a malicious one) that caused the damage, therefore ball kicking lad is at fault.

Are you boy 1's parent?

I am indeed Boy 1's parent. hangs head in shame

The kicking the ball at each other sounds like a pretty standard game that boys of that age would play with their mates, rather than something sinister as implied by a couple of people on here. If boy 2 was playing then it's 100% his fault as he shouldn't have had his phone out. I don't think it's reasonable that kids should have to check that a person they're playing a game with isn't on their phone before they give them the ball.

If boy 2 wasn't playing then it's different and more boy 1's fault. Although if the school had a no phones in the playground policy that makes it more complicated, as that may well be in place to avoid accidents like this in the first place.

The school should have a no phones policy though.

Some schools do allow kids to have phones in school. Sometimes they are allowed to use them in class for research, so not necessarily fair to say it shouldn't have been in school. - actually you are correct, the school my children went to, prided itself on being a school leading the way in Technology and allowed use of phones in school, with the exception of lessons.

You take your phone out in a playground near to where people/your mates are playing football, you take your chances. It's not victim blaming, anything can happen. There's no issue with bullying - take more care of breakable stuff FFS.

Don't hang your head in shame. It was an accident and you're rectifying things. Good for you.

"You take your phone out in a playground near to where people/your mates are playing football, you take your chances."

Oh my godddd. He didn't take his chances and lose! It wasn't a stray ball - the ball was knowingly and deliberately kicked right at him.

Don't hang your head OP - your son wasn't malicious. It's one of those things.

If 2 not part of the game them 1 should pay all.

If he was part of the game them surely he should pay all?

Even if he wasn't expected to be hit in the way he was, surely he shouldn't be looking at his phone whilst playing football?

Don't hang your head in shame. This is the sort of stupid game my ds loves to play. Accidents happen.

So if I go to the park to watch my kids play football and another child deliberately kicks the ball right at me and smashes my phone, it's my fault is it?
Like fuck it is.

Don't hang your head. This is the sort of thing that happens in a school playground. You sound like you are dealing with it fairly.

Its an accident Op..nothing to be shameful about :) x

OP. Boy 2's parents should be claiming on the phone's insurance and the balance of the repair bill should be payed by parents of boy 1.

boy 2's premiums will go up as a reuslt anyway.

If a phone is broken at school it is entirely the responsibility of the phone owner.

It should be insured.

It shouldn't be out at school.

I speak as a parent of a child whose phone was broken at school - no way on earth you demand anyone else pay - the phone should not have been out at school, entirely the child phone owner's fault.

Apart from anything else who says others can even afford to pay for xyz phone - it was the phone owner's decision to buy that phone (or their parents), their decision to bring it to school, their decision to get it out against the school rules in a situation where they know full well there are kids running and balls being kicked about, their (or their parents) decision not to insure it.

The risks are all being taken by the phone owner - no reason at all for the child doing a normal playground activity to be emotionally blackmailed into paying just because the other family are chancers.

That said if you want to pay, pay - but the other family are trying it on, and putting their child in an unfortunate position if they are suggesting he emotionally blackmails your son by suggesting they will fall out if he doesn't cough up.

"5more" Lots of schools allow phones. Such a broad generalisation doesn't assist. What if Boy 3 had snatched the phone out of boy 2's hand and deliberately stamped on it to smash it. Still boy 2's fault?

We need to revert to when people took a bit more responsibility for their actions (or the likely consequences of their actions). It seems that someone else is always to blame nowadays.

I think you are doing the right thing OP.

I see both sides. I would usually say that Boy1 pays, but to be fair, if Boy 2 had his phone out in the playground and if phones aren't allowed in the playground, then Boy1 wouldn't have expected someone to have a phone out and could have kicked the ball at his friend with the full expectation that he's suitably ready to take the hit.

In my children's school, phones are allowed to be carried to use after school but aren't allowed to be used during school hours and most of the pupils stick to this to avoid phone confiscation. If this was the case, Boy1 isn't responsible at all, as they're just boys aping around in the playground and he can't reasonably have forseen that Boy2 had taken his phone out.

If for eg, Boy2 had his phone in his pocket, and him and boy2 were rolling around playfighting and the phone was crushed I don't suppose most people would think that that would be Boy1's responsibility. It would be (imo obviously) Boy2 who should realise he has a phone to protect and Boy2 who should take reasonable steps to look after it.

I entirely agree that people don't take enough responsibility for the things their children do but in this case, I can't see why Boy2 shouldn't bear responsibility for having his phone out in an area where others play football. I once stood talking to another mum where boys were playing football and I took a ball really hard to the side of my head (much to my children's amusement and enjoyment). I didn't for one second think it was the fault of the mortified boy whose parent dragged him over to me to apologise, rather I acknowledged it as an accident and completely my fault for standing where I was standing.

I wouldn't have expected him to replace my phone if it had been damaged, except in the case of a malicious aim, which his wasn't.

I think unless it was deliberate, which OP says it wasn't, that Boy2 pays and it would be a nice gesture if Boy1 contributes. But if Boy1 can't really afford to, I really don't think it's his fault and I speak as someone whose daughters phone was broken at school in similar circumstances.

We paid and although I felt a little rattled at the stupidity of the other party, I could see it wasn't really her call.

Edit: Ive just read 5 more minutes post and I completely agree with that as well.

"It shouldn't be out at school."

Why not?