Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 23:06

Most snappers have insurance, and it's incredibly expensive. I'm not surprised the photographer doesn't want to claim on it, his premiums would rise and he'd practically be unable to make a living.

Slightly daft to use a 3k lens near water, but presumably he assumed the teens were tame. They weren't.

Even the most half-witted child over the age of 4 knows not to throw water at a phone, so why you'd hurl it at a camera....

I'm with the snapper on this one - bad behaviour has consequences, often expensive. That's fine.

NewToCats · 19/08/2018 23:08

Would have thought it was the photographers responsibility to keep his kit safe. If he knew there was a waterfight going on near him, he knew there was a chance he might get water on his kit. He should have looked after his own things and put them away.

LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 23:08

So the kid threw a bottle of water at the photographer?

londonrach · 19/08/2018 23:09

Youth organisation id say should pay but certainly photographer can claim damages but he need proof of damage...bill for repair etc. You need legal advice on this. If damaged happened whilst teacher in charge school would pay from their insurance

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 19/08/2018 23:11

It would be very unfair for your dh to be held personally accountable for an action which could not have been anticipated or planned for, but I do think your dh needs to make sure he has shit hot insurance, going forward. If only to avoid the stress of this.

billybagpuss · 19/08/2018 23:12

How much water, if it has got into the lens it can be fairly expensive to clean out properly but not £3k worth. DH had a cheaper version of what I imagine the photographer was using fixed last year sometime. Our lens had been dropped and I think it cost about £120

PlatypusPie · 19/08/2018 23:13

It’s not just a piece of glass fitted into plastic. It will be an entire lens unit that fits onto the body of a camera, with a focussing motor and other pieces of fine machinery. They can be irreparably damaged by water ingress ( brother eith expensive hobby).

AJPTaylor · 19/08/2018 23:14

The youth organisation will have public liability insurance. If he does take it further, refer to the youth organisation formally. Household/personal insurance not designed to cover this.

Original poster
ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:15

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

Good advice, pretty much what we are thinking.

This seems to be a man who is half intelligent and thinks we are stupid telling us his solicitor can get our address from the electoral role - well anyone can get this information for a small price online and it is of no concern to us. I think he feels my husband ignoring him is my husband hiding away from him but it's actually been DH can calm down before speaking to him (he started this just 6 hours after we out our dog to sleep so I was surprised this man was still standing!!). I'm quite glad now there has been no comments from us as I guess that puts us in the strongest legal position.

OP posts:
Original poster
ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:17

@PlatypusPie

Thanks for that, I wasn't meaning to be offensive I didn't realise they were that complex.

OP posts:
LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 23:17

Get an estimate done by the camera firm's repair dept. Pay that from the youth org's account. Apologise. Don't use the photographer again.

Get rid of the teens who did it too, telling them and their parents why. Might have been something teens now see as a mistake because they got comeback, but it wasn't an accident. Bit mean on the next target, could be a human.

LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 23:20

Flowers your poor DH. Some amateur photographers spend a fortune and are awful little princesses about their boys' toys. Refer the man to the youth org and tell him to stop bothering you.

Nomorechickens · 19/08/2018 23:23

Your DH should politely deny responsibility and tell him to claim on his insurance or refer the matter to the organisation. Then refuse to engage further. I can't see how your DH has any responsibility. But for the future he should look into taking out public liability insurance.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 19/08/2018 23:23

I wouldn't do that Ana. He's freelance and I'm not sure he can just access the youth org accounts and make a unilateral decision to pay a bill. Esp when it hasn't been proven that the children caused yhe level of damage bring claimed for!

What he claims happened might be true. Otoh he could be trying it on to get money - it's not like people don't ever make fraudulent insurance claims. Even if it is true, the issue of who pays has to be sorted legally.

AlexanderHamilton · 19/08/2018 23:24

As others have said, this should be an insurance matter either the photographers own insurance or the youth group. Even if your dh was proved to be negligent it would be the youth group insurance as your dh was working/volunteering on behalf of them.

PlatypusPie · 19/08/2018 23:24

ShouldDiet You weren’t being offensive at all ! Just wanted to clarify that they are more complex than they sound so damage can be more extensive than you might think.

LanaorAna2 · 19/08/2018 23:31

OP, I really can't see how your DH is liable. One the youth org's members threw the bottle, not him. It doesn't make much difference who was 'in charge' - that doesn't count a) when someone misbehaves b) or more usually, at all c) no one person can assume public liability for an organisation. Especially not a freelance worker.

DH is in the clear. But he has got to talk to the youth org.

Sibsmum · 19/08/2018 23:44

I would think that it is only a criminal matter of malicious intent could be proven and that the police were involved. At 16 the teen is criminally responsible in UK, so husband has no liability.
I can empathise with all sides, but expect it will come to photographer insurance and youth organisations insurance battling it out.

Themerrygoroundoflife · 19/08/2018 23:45
  1. assuming that it wasn’t a water based event (you mention a sponsored walk earlier) then the photography would be reasonable to not expect to have water thrown at the camera
  2. Your DH would very likely not be personally responsible if he was an employee, unless he was either directing the teen to throw water or failed to stop it after he became aware and there was a job description that said supervising was his role. Even then most organisations would pay and discipline the staff member.
  3. the teenager could be responsible but would have no money to pay.
  4. the organisation may be responsible even though he is freelance. It’s does depend on the contract your DH has and what his specific role is e.g is he solely responsible for supervision or is it shared, is he responsible for managing volunteers?
  5. if your DH was responsible then it would still only be repair the lens, which he could reasonably ask to be verified by a neutral third party.
Original poster
ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:49

@LanaorAna2

Thanks, he's spoken with the organisation (it's ran by a man he is on good terms with and they speak freely with each other) and as of yet it doesn't seem to have occurred to this man that he may be the one who has to fund any claim. That said, I don't think the photographer wants to 'bite the hand that feeds him' hence he has only hinted at this man about him paying.

I think from his messages below (one was sent inbetween requesting our address) it's clear he is trying to throw out legal words but actually doesn't know what he is talking about!

The electoral role bit makes me laugh, it's £20 DIY, cheaper than a solicitor!

Message 1
(Names changed)

"With regards my frustration I’m sure you understand I have a potential substantial loss. Sadly as you have responsibility of loco parentis and joking with a child to squirt water at someone with cameras I do feel you should take some responsibility! Let me have your thoughts.... sadly I can’t afford to absorb loss as it falls into irresponsible and I use the word likely but I’d actually class it as guided criminal damage. The kit will. Be sent to Sony for appraisal. Do you take any responsibility or shall I take it up with Simon as an *organisation' issue?"

Message 2

"Sad you can’t even supply requested info! Adding costs all
The way.... my solicitor will find out from electoral register or. Request from police it respect of civil action. A conversation would still make sense! I have looked into this in some depth and under your employment as a responsible adult (locoparetice) You have been
Negligent ? I have video footage and you have open told people you told a chat le to do it as it was fun.... I suggest you get some legal advice. Currently I have a loss of approx 2300 plus increasing as I involve solicitor etc! Last ditch attempt before I throw this to court?"

Must add that he has made claims that are untrue, in message 1 that DH joked about squirting the water, witnesses have backed up DH was not involved with a discussion of wetting the photographer. The second message he claims to have footage but we don't believe that as his claim is false and he has not provided anyone else with a copy(i.e the organisation).

OP posts:
Original poster
ShouldDiet · 19/08/2018 23:50

(Though footage would be welcomed as it would clear DH!)

OP posts:
Flobalob · 20/08/2018 00:18

If I remember my basic legal training correctly, then there is such a thing as vicarious liability where an employer is liable for the actions (or inaction) of an employee.

I would get some proper legal advice via your home insurance. I would get something in writing from witnesses to say that your husband didn't encourage the water throwing and had nothing to do with it. I would also make the owner of the organisation aware that this photographer is threatening legal action. I would also make the boy's parents aware of possible legal action.

LanaorAna2 · 20/08/2018 00:20

He's an idiot. And lying through his teeth. He's hassling DH because he doesn't want to lose his job at the YO.

But being a nasty liar doesn't stop him having a claim. A possible claim....but not against your DH.

  1. The man says loss is 'potential' and he freely admits he hasn't sent anything off to Sony yet, so threatening legal action is a bit premature. No loss or money is involved at this point - and it would have been if the bloke actually had a broken camera mended.

No claim exists until loss has been suffered, see. The man apparently seems in no hurry to prove there has been a loss. But is in a hurry to ask for money. (Hmmm - but that's another story.)

  1. DH didn't throw the bottle and wasn't involved. Doesn't matter what the man invents, that's fact. No claim possible against DH. Claim against daft teen a possibility, more likely YO. Talking about criminal damage is ludicrous when DH wasn't involved.
  1. YO is responsible whoever threw the sodding bottle. DH must take this man's comms to the YO. Show them what man is saying. Then rebut the fibs point by point, and hand the whole thing over to them. Don't engage.
  1. DH is being harrassed, albeit mildly. Get the YO to deal with it.
LanaorAna2 · 20/08/2018 00:25

A conversation would still make sense! - no, he wants a cheque. With no proof anything was damaged and with a lot of proof DH wasn't liable. Time for Simon to drop him a line.

MidniteScribbler · 20/08/2018 00:28

If anyone has responsibility it would be the 19 year old that is the 'helper' and who encouraged the teen to throw water at the photographer. I would hope that his assistance is not accepted on any future activities. I would also be telling the teen's parents and banning them from future activities. I bet if the 16 year were holding their phone and someone squirted water at them that they'd be screaming pretty loudly.