Does Loco Parents imply criminal responsibility?

[ShouldDiet]

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?

He wouldn't be able to take it to court, or get a lawyer, OP, because there's no proof he suffered loss. Anyway, no solicitor would take it on because small claims (under 5k) can be done yourself these days online at HMCS. Costs about 60 quid. He'd lose even if he did.

Thank you for your thorough reply @LanaorAna2. The messages were sent about a week apart so he MAY have sent to Sony and received back however I think it's unlikely. Im wondering if it's worth sending an email address for him to send documents too? I definitely feel these messages and calls are harassing, particularly as he is making claims he can't prove! I'm wondering where that puts him in terms of the law!?!!!

Do not enable him further to communicate with you or DH. You must talk to the YO. Don't ask for documents or bills or owt like that. All he's done at the moment is make himself look dodgy, and you want to keep it that way.

Believe you me, harrassment has to be a lot worse than that before you can call the police. Calm down and talk to the YO. It's not your problem any more.

Send all the correspondence to the youth organisation and let their insurers deal with it. Don't correspond with the photographer until you have had advice, either from the youth organisation or from a legal adviser of your own (check your house insurance to see if you can access advice through that). Look at the contract your dh signed with the youth organisation as it should set out his responsibilities.

Am I right in thinking that your dh was contracted by the YO to lead an activity for young people with the help of volunteers? One of the young people threw water on the photographer, possibly at the instigation of a volunteer but while your dh was in charge of the group? The young person and the volunteer will definitely be under the insurance coverage of the youth organisation, the only ambiguity is for dh as a contractor. The contract should include a section on liability, it's not unusual to ask for all contractors to carry insurance, but smaller organisations may not ask for proof, and so this can easily be missed leaving a hole where the organisation's insurers say they are not liable and so will not defend.

It all sounds dodgy.... He trying to get money from you!

I wouldn't communicate directly with him at all.
I would get advice from CAB. (Theu may advise you to briefly refute any wrong doing direct.?
Viz ' I did not encourage /say anything about the yp splashing you/you camera.
Please contact xyz Youth group if you wish to persue.:?

If its a youth group they should have insurance who will argue the toss with him.

I suspect he will need more evidence than this to prove he suffered loss as a result of the young person's actions.rather than water ingress due to rain/dropping his lens in a sink etc

Am I right in thinking that the photographer was hired by the YO, just as your husband was? In that case, unless your DH was directly responsible for the damage (ie threw the water himself), then his first port of call must be the YO as his employer, as the damage was sustained in the course of his employment. Or his insurance company.
Sounds like he’s trying it on, and also doesn’t have the funds to mount a legal case.

It is definitely a small claim (under £10k) and, excepting very rare circumstances, legal costs are not awarded, so, win or lose, you are liable for your own solicitor’s costs.

I would write him a simple text with your version of events and why you feel you don’t have liability.

Then I would not even worry about it. The chances of him taking legal advice are small and, if he does, he will be disappointed.

Your Dh should refer this to the organisation lead. They will then inform their insurers of a potential claim being made. The insurers will then tell you what to do n

The photographer will then either lose his nerve and leave it. Or lodge a claim through the insurers. This will get accepted and paid or batted down and refused.
If he DID have a solicitor already, then they would already be handling it directly and he wouldn’t be contacting you!

Contact the insurers.

Loco Parentis means that you have the same responsibilities and duties as the child's parents would in the same situation. However as this is part of DH's job it is his employing organisation that has loco parentis, not your DH personally (unless your DH is a partner/director of the company) so even if your DH was responsible for this then it would be his employer who was liable (though they could sack DH for misconduct/bringing the company into disrepute).

However I don't think that there is any liability here. It is blindingly obvious that any equipment taken to within splashing distance of where kids are playing with water is going to get splashed. No parent or loco parentis supervisor actually has the power to stop kids from mucking about. This photographer is trying it on. Suggest to him that his next idea for recreational legal challenge might be to place a £6000 camera on a road and stand at the road side with a remote trigger to take pictures of approaching cars, and then if one of the cars drives over the camera and damages it he can have some fun sueing the driver.

An interesting one. I know at one point we were sent home a letter saying that we would be billed if our child damaged property at school. This is a very similar set of circumstances so they would say the parent rather the person in loco parentis.

The photographer needs to put in a claim against the youth organisations insurance.
I chair a voluntary organisation and if one of the kids damaged a suppliers equipment by behaving badly we wouldn’t expect the volunteer supervising to pay we’d claim on the insurance. We’d never have anyone volunteer if we started putting that kind of liability on them. If a volunteer did the damage themselves by behaving recklessly it might be a different matter but this isn’t the case.

Also being in loco parent is doesn’t mean you assume criminal responsibility. If one of the kids I supervise broke the law they’d be charged not me.

@ShouldDiet I work in liability insurance and deal with these sorts of claims daily. The photographer should be directing his claim to the organisation not your DH however he doesn't seem to get it.

If you don't respond to his claim he is entitled to issue proceedings whether he is pursuing the right party or not - this can be expensive to resolve if not responded to properly and promptly. You do need to ensure you have your insurers on board as early as possible as late notification can mean they may refuse to cover you.

If you have home contents insurance you will have Public Liability insurance that may cover this incident and they will contact the photographer directly and also liaise with the organisation. Even if not covered by your home insurers it does need to be reported to the organisation's insurers.

Please do report to insurers and let them deal with this for you.

As an aside given the young leader admits he encouraged the water fight then it is likely the photographer would succeed with a claim for damage - it should be foreseeable that throwing water at a person holding a camera might cause damage.

If it was the case that the kids had started it themselves quite spontaneously then it would be different as they couldn't have expected it, so it is essential that the the organisation deal with this quickly if they want to resolve quickly before costs escalate.