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?

The football was allowed in the playground, the phone was not. If other boy used his phone where he shouldn't its his own fault it got broken.

And he should have insurance anyway.

OP, I think I would do the same but I'd be annoyed by it . It was just an accident but it was caused by your DS. I'd offer to pay too but hopefully they should have insurance or hopefully it's a cheap phone.

It's really annoying

atticusclaw2 what about the consequences of the phone owner's actions, choosing to mess with his phone in a playground where people are playing football.

Alwayschanging said at 10:08 that in the school referred to in the OP phones are banned in the playground so whether that is always the case or not, it is here.

Phones are banned. As far as we know running about and football are not, and physical activity is what school playgrounds are for.

Nobody stamped on his phone so that really isn't relevant.

Interestingly, at my son's school phones are allowed in the playground while footballs are not.
There is an all weather pitch they are supposed to use for ball games to prevent accidents such as windows being smashed and other people getting hurt.

So it's quite the opposite here.

Because it is banned pictish - the OP said so.

pictish any phones that are seen out at school are confiscated. I'm sure rules vary, but this is the rule at his school. If a teacher had seen him with a phone it would have been confiscated.
No - it's not a cheap phone.
TBH - my son thinks he should pay up and is not arguing about it. He accepts he was daft. It is just so much money for him. He has a job dog walking twice a week and he will have to work for nearly 2 months to cover the cost of the repair.

"He has a job dog walking twice a week and he will have to work for nearly 2 months to cover the cost of the repair."

This is so deeply unfair when the boy was breaking the rules by having the phone out in the first place.

The boy was using his phone against school rules in a school playground where people were playing football and running about - to say he was using it at his own risk is an understatement IMO.

When a classmate of my DD's broke her phone by knocking it off a desk during a break it never crossed my mind to consider it the other child's fault or start demanding the other child pay. That is entitlement IMO. It was DD's fault, she shouldn't have had her phone out.

You choose to take a risk when you take out an expensive, uninsured, fragile item in a school playground, especially when it is against the rules.

Was the phone even in a protective case?

Fair dos...but you know they'll all have their phones anyway, rule or not.

I don't think boy 2 breaking the school rule about having a phone on him negates the act of having the ball kicked at him deliberately, but I know lots of people won't agree.

I think it sounds exactly like six of one and half a dozen of the other and think an offer to pay half of the cost of repair would be very fair.

I feel really sorry for him. Can you help him with the money?

I could help, but would prefer not to link it to the phone repair. So I will sub him more than usual over the next 2 months, but will not offer to help pay for the phone, otherwise the lesson is not learnt.

I need to speak to the other parent now to organise the money - definitely not sending DS into school with cash.
Will let you all know what she says.

Ah, poor DS. Call me old-fashioned but I think it's a shame that kids can't play ball games in the playground without worrying about breaking expensive technology (that shouldn't even be there!). Sounds like he has a pretty firm sense of personal responsibility though. Well done on raising a son like that (hope that doesn't sound patronising!).

I still can't fathom why phones are allowed in any school playground, although understand it is a hard rule to enforce.

Hang on, your son will pay for the whole thing? That means that the boy holding the phone doesn't bear any responsibility? That isn't right!

If my son was boy 2, I'd be annoyed with homfor having his phone I school/ not looking after it properly.

I wouldn't be after boy 1 his parents for the money.

Have you spoken to the boys parents? I really don't think it's fair on your son that he has to pay all of it. Maybe half is appropriate.

My son and his friend took my iPhone outside (despite me telling them not to) and it got dropped and smashed. I never even told the boy's mum. My phone, my responsibility.

Op your son should not pay. He may have realised too late. Boy 2 needs to take responsibility for his actions and possessions too.

I don't have her number - I have asked DS to get it.

Boy 2 needs to take responsibility for his own phone. Why would he have it out during a football game or near one.

This is why schools discourage people from taking phones in. If you take your items to school you look after them (unless there was a deliberate act which in the case there wasn't)

OP, Hopefully, even if it was a fancy phone it was an OLD fancy phone. Id replace it with a refurbished one that's a similar age and condition. If it's possible I'd ask for a receipt for the broken phone so you know how old it is and I'd try and source the phone myself.

I think the fact that Boy B shouldn't have had the phone in his hand is beside the point. The only thing that matters is whether Boy A deliberately kicked the ball at Boy B, knowing Boy B was not expecting the ball. If, for arguments sake, this was the case, and it was Boy B's glasses that got smashed, rather than his phone, would everyone saying that Boy A shouldn't pay still be saying the same? Boy A should pay if the above scenario is the case in order to learn the lesson that it's a very stupid thing to do, even if all his mates do it.
If, however, Boy B was involved in the game, and didn't make it clear that he was stopping playing to do something on his phone, then it's much less clear cut, and I'd think a contribution from Boy A would be more appropriate.

I think 50:50 split is way to go. If boy 1 had broken boy 2s glasses in similar circs I'd say he owed full amount. But the phone shouldn't have been there.

Boy 1 should pay. The other boy wasn't playing football holding his phone - he had a ball unexpectedly kicked at him. The fact they have played such a stupid game before is irrelevant. Maybe now they will stop?

Well - it's been resolved - after a fashion.
Just talked to DS (home early because he's got a migraine). After the phone was knocked out of boy 2's hand, boy 2 then played football with the phone and later started to bump into other boys, pretending that they had knocked him and made him drop his phone. Good game, eh?
So no way am I paying to repair a phone that has been treated like that. We would have paid for a screen repair, but not to replace the whole phone after it has been used as a football and then dropped deliberately another dozen times.
Boy 2 has not asked for money and no parental phone numbers have been exchanged. We are off the hook.

Can you imagine the state that phone must have been in? What on earth could he say to his parents to explain it?

I wouldn't offer unless asked, but if asked probably would in the interests of keeping the peace. They've both been daft.

Since when was it embarrassing or in any way wrong to kick a ball at someone?!! Unless it was in a mean sort of way and you've already said no bullying...