Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Does Loco Parents imply criminal responsibility?

64 replies

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 22:17

Thoughts please.

DH worked on a youth project in freelance role, he had loco parents I'm as far as he looked after their well-being.

During a trip, a 16 year old threw water on a photographer's leg during a waterfront, the photographer claims it damaged a 3000 camera and my DH is responsible due to loco parentis. A 19 year old helper encouraged the water to be thrown at photographer but no malice was intended. Thoughts, is the photographer BU?

OP posts:

ghostyslovesheets · 19/08/2018 22:19

yeah of course the photographer is being unreasonable - he should laugh and just ignore the damage to a three grand camera

FlatPackFurnitureCompAnyone · 19/08/2018 22:21

That’s not what the OP is asking, the question is whether the photographer actually has a legal leg to stand on.

HelpmeobiMN · 19/08/2018 22:21

This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Also, people who have parental responsibility for children don’t have criminal responsibility.

Being in loco parentis doesn’t automatically mean that your DH had a duty of care to the photographer. It depends on other factors. Was it just an accident? Was your DH supposed to be supervising at the time?

I think the photographer would be hard pressed to insist on payment by your DH. He should claim on his insurance and his insurers can seek recovery from your DH’s insurers (or the insurers of the supervising organisation)

ghostyslovesheets · 19/08/2018 22:23

it's criminal damage if thrown with intent

IrregularCommentary · 19/08/2018 22:23

I'd have thought the photographer would be insured for this kind of thing.

I'd be very surprised if being in loco parentis covered liability for accidental damage to property, though I don't pretend to know the law on this.

HelpmeobiMN · 19/08/2018 22:24

If the photographer is claiming damages and not reporting a crime to the police, it’s a civil matter.

sleepingdragon · 19/08/2018 22:25

If your DH is freelance does he have his own indemnity insurance? If not will the project consider reimbursing the photographer/claiming through their insurance. I think the photographer is right to demand compensation, but the responsibility is the organisation's really rather than your husband, unless he acted in a way that was against risk assessments/ other policies and procedures. Being a freelancer makes it tricky tho- when I worked with vulnerable adults in a freelance capacity my contract said I needed my own insurance.

Squidgee · 19/08/2018 22:27

so they were having a waterfight? And he's moaning his camera got damaged?

Maybe he shouldn't be having waterfights with teenagers while holding several thousand pounds worth of equipment.

kaitlinktm · 19/08/2018 22:31

I always thought that in loco parentis just meant you acted in the best interests of the young person whilst their parents/carers were not available. I didn't think it meant you were responsible for any damage they did.

RestingBitchFace101 · 19/08/2018 22:33

Technically the 16 year old has assaulted the photographer by throwing water on him or you could say he has committed criminal damage as he has been reckless throwing the water near expensive equipment. It's the 16 year old that would be in trouble not your husband. The criminal age of responsibility is 10 in the UK.

Squidgee · 19/08/2018 22:35

and no, your H isn't responsible or liable for the damage, the boy and his actual parents are.

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 22:36

Just to add, I meant a £3000 LENSE. The photographer is not under 18. Will address any other queries shortly.

OP posts:

BoneyBackJefferson · 19/08/2018 22:39

If they were both working for the youth project then the photographer should be claiming from the youth projects indemnity insurance.

If the photographer was just there, he should be claiming from his insurance and making a claim against the youth project.

But you may want to either talk to a solicitor just to make sure or post in legal.

BakedBeans47 · 19/08/2018 22:40

Not really my area but I agree it’s more a civil than a criminal matter. In terms of criminal matters third parties aren’t responsible, how would it be fair for someone to be held criminally responsible for something they didn’t either physically or have the mental intent to do? I also don’t necessarily think they’d be liable in civil law either for the actions of the other person but there might be a course of action if your DH was somehow negligent himself, eg not supervising properlyz

Bezm · 19/08/2018 22:46

The water will not ave damaged his lens. It can be stripped and cleaned. My DH has very expensive cameras and I asked him.
The photographer is taking the piss!

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 22:47

The photographer wasn't taking part in the water fight directly.

The photographer claims to have worked in education for 20 years and has photographed on this youth project for about 4 years so part of me feels he shouldn't work with younger ones if he hasn't got insurance to cover this.

Perhaps 'criminal' damage was a step too far, but what I meant is DH legally responsible? For example if a teacher takes children on a school trip and a 16 year old damages someone's property, it wouldn't be the teacher held accountable so surely it's the same here?

Obviously we are going to seek legal advice and only communicate in writing. Our instincts tell us that DH would not be held legally responsible but we want to be sure. The overall 'employer' agrees with my DH and has felt the photographer has hinted at him (the 'organisation') paying so I think he may be trying his luck. I think the photographer isn't pursuing the employer as the employer is well respected and he's better to have on his side, plus he wants the future work.

I don't understand why if he was operating legally and above board he wouldn't just take it to insurers and write it off as an occupational hazard!?

DH says his leg was a bit wet, not the soaking he has later claimed has damaged a lense.

OP posts:

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 19/08/2018 22:53

Wouldn't the onus be on the photographer to prove the level of damage caused. Otherwise anyone could claim for anything.

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 22:57

At worst this was 'accidental damage' of what the photographer is claiming is true. There was no malice ever intended by the boy who threw the water, just poor judgement

Photographer has sent long texts and claiming he has costs he can claim following legal advice though I'm inclined to believe he is trying to bluff my husband into a response. DH has ignored him so far as they had already had a verbal discussion where several people backed up my DH was not responsible. Don't mean to drip feed but photographer claims my husband told the boy to do it. Witnesses agreed that he didn't and the young supervisor who did has even admitted to that. My husband was at the back of the group helping some slower members along (sponsored walk), other young supervisors were at other points of the group. DH had passed the boy a water bottle not knowing it was heading to the photographer.

OP posts:

Feltcushion · 19/08/2018 22:58

What insurance was in place? Who was employing your DH? What insurance does he have in place?

LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 22:59

The phrase you're after is in loco parentis.

Loco parents means something else. Which may apply too.

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:00

Yes @iwannaseehowitends I would think so. He had a camera at the time in his hands but at the moment we don't know if it was for photographs or video recording.

Really good point earlier about struppling and cleaning a lense. How could plain water damage a lense? Surely it's just an expensive piece of glass fitted into plastic?
What is the difference between thrown water or him being caught in a downpour?

OP posts:

BoneyBackJefferson · 19/08/2018 23:00

If a teacher takes pupils on a trip and something is damaged they are insured by the school.

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:03

@LanaorAna2

Haha I'm sure I've typoed many times where, rushing to type! Definitely menat loco parentis though currently feeling like loco parents

@Feltcushion I'm not 100% sure on the exact insurances involved but the organiser is hot on doing everything above board so if the photographer needs to clarify against him he will be covered. I just don't think the photographer wants to ruin the relationship with the man giving him work and potentially valuable refrrals

OP posts:

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 19/08/2018 23:03

I think he's piss taking. Possibly your home insurance includes legal cover in case your dh is sued.
I would continue to ignore and get legal advice. Don't put anything in writing to him without getting it cleared by a solicitor first.

Original poster

ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:05

@Bezm

Really interesting point re:water not damaging a lense! He claimed this only several hours after the event at the end of his 'shift' so presumably before even going home and fully dissasembling. He claims to have sent the lense to the manufacturer for a report.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3