Boy breaks grandmother's arm by accident

[Nimbostratus100]

I am not going to say what happened next and what I think until I have heard a few objective opinions on here

The facts of the case

12 year old boy in sports club, leaving the main entrance on his skateboard, which he has been told is not allowed in the building, knocks over the grandmother coming to collect another child. The grandmother has a broken arm and needed an operation

This is a fairly elite sports club, you need to be able to play to a certain standard to by allowed to join. This boy has played there for a year. No serious trouble, several minor reprimands. Reasonably good player. Turns up for the team probably 80-90% of the time.

This happened last weekend. The sports club is meeting tomorrow. The parents have just heard that this boy has/has not been expelled and will/will not be there.

What do you think should happen? why?

I am allocating the voting by a toss of a coin to be random!

YABU - the boy should be expelled
YANBU - the boy should not be expelled

also, what else should happen, as well as/ instead of being expelled?

Thank you

I don't think you've read OP's posts properly. Amongst other matters, she's mentioned that some members of the family are troublemakers who thankfully don't come to the club. On any interpretation, she knows more about it than you do. I'm not painting them in any light, I'm simply going on the evidence, rather than following your path in speculating.

The fact that he's not a teenager makes it even more excusable - he's still learning.

This is obviously a pretty successful club, given that it at elite levels and can pick and choose who it accepts. On what basis are you claiming it isn't decent? Perhaps they've worked out that children don't come to them with perfectly formed sporting manners and that their job is to teach them? After all, too many people actually reach professional adult levels in sport still arguing with referees.

Yet again, no-one argues that he shouldn't be punished, so why do you keep labouring this point?

For all the posts complaining about the lack of compassion and the hardships this child has had to endure through no fault of his own, there are multiple parents being put through hell because of other children who think they can get away with literal murder. Yes, blame the government, blame the lack of community programmes and argue that this child should stay in the programme because he may do worse, but where is the line. Maybe he grows up with a sense of entitlement worse that he has has now and ends up killing someone because there were few repercussions.

We still don’t know why the other parents boycotted, other than they assumptions they’re white and middle class (unless I’ve missed some updates), and therefore it must be for malicious reasons. Maybe the other children are have a particular view of him which is valid, who knows, the the statements about how the boycotting parents were just ignored, doesn’t sit right either.

This matter feels indicative of the behaviour of many children in the UK. I’m no draconian disciplinarian however, there is a fundamental lack of proper guidance across the board in my view for many children.

No. There is a fundamental basis for assigning culpability and administering justice - it is called the rule of law.

The child, who has not committed any criminal offense, has no case to answer to any prosecuting authority, court, or tribunal. Anyone suggesting that he should suffer punitive sanctions beyond those required by the law are engaging in harassment, and the boycotting parents who cannot accept that the law works as it does are nasty bullies. We don't need lynch mobs deciding they understand the law and are better placed to administer justice than the professionals who actually do this.

The injured party may be able to claim for her losses against an insurance policy, or she may not. That is a private matter for her to argue. If she does, then it will involve an investigation of her basis for a claim, which includes an examination of any pre-existing medical conditions to establish the reasonableness of her conduct, and whether there is any contributory negligence on her part. Based on what the OP has said, she may indeed succeed in such a claim. But whether she does or not is a private matter between her and the club and its insurers. The skateboarding boy has no role in this matter, other than that of an eyewitness.

He was told he shouldn't have the skateboard in the building. He broke that rule. Then, instead of carrying it safely out of the building, he skated it out. That deliberate act is why the woman (irrelevant how old she is) was knocked over. So, even though it was an accident, there was contributory negligence at the very least. Expel him.

Children can pay compensation, I know a teacher who was hurt by a child who "lost it" and the school policy was to call the policy, it went to court and the child is paying compensation. He loses his pocketmoney but it will take years to pay it all off.

So in that case, it's really the parents that are paying it, as the givers of pocket money. Sounds a bit weird.

If they give the child pocketmoney I suppose it becomes the child's money. All I know is that is what happened, I have no reason to suppose the teacher was lying. He was complaining about how pathetic it is that he will be getting pence per week for years and then presumably a higher amount when the child starts work. Probably even more annoying for the child concerned as he is apparently paying money to more than one teacher.

So what if the parents decide to no longer give the child pocket money. Or they can't afford to. Or the child misbehaves and they withhold it. I'm not saying you're lying, justice is increasingly more illogical these days, but there's more holes in this idea of justice than a watering can. Some sort of community work, that's logical and makes sense. Or being suspended, expelled, all those options that can be used. Or if the teacher needs compensation, then it comes out of the schools insurance.

Probably even more annoying for the child concerned as he is apparently paying money to more than one teacher.

So did their pocket money go up in order to pay this second teacher, or did the other teacher get less in order for the child to pay off two compensation claims now? Or did he get a really big allowance each week that enabled him to be able to pay out compensation? Do the parents keep topping up his pocket money in order to fulfil their child's compensation debts? Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 🤷‍♀️

I would like to put this into perspective: "he was skateboarding knowing it wasn't allowed, knock the grandma down, she fell on the head creating injury which lead her to pass away later in the hospital " I know that is not luckly what happened but could have been the outcome, and people would ve answer differently in this thread. For me it's YABU.

What queue of people? I think there has been one person on this thread who suggested there could be an element of blame from the victim, and even then it's only on a possible contributory negligence basis. One person doesn't constitute a queue. And no-one has suggested the child should not be punished.

So what is your excuse for making up the facts to suit your prejudices?

We don't punish people for what might have happened. We don't even punish them for what actually happened. We punish them for their behaviours, not the consequences of those behaviours. If their behaviour is unlawful, then the law prescribes the appropriate punishment. If it is not unlawful, then there is no requirement, or justification, for any punishment whatsoever.

You do, of course, know perfectly well that "nothing" did not relate to the injury but to the lack of evidence for your assertions that the boy was entitled or selfish, or that anyone on this thread wants him to be mollycoddled. This boy ignored what he was told on one occasion in a year. He did a stupid, careless thing and deserves to be punished. But none of that justifies you making up the facts about him.

The problem is that there are limits to how far the club can discuss the personal affairs of a child member and their decisions with regard to that child with other adults, particularly people who seem to think they know better than those in charge at the club despite not knowing the facts. If these particular club members have made an assumption that the club hasn't followed a fair process and won't accept that fact without having it explained to them, there does have to be a question mark about whether their continued membership is appropriate. After all, this is a sports club which needs to teach people that they don't argue with the ref.

Having public liability insurance doesn't make the club automatically liable for every injury that happens on the premises. If, for instance, this kid had fallen over and broken his arm whilst skateboarding on the premises, he would have no claim. Likewise if an adult club member trips over their undone shoelace inside the club,, the insurance won't pay out. Despite the blurb in that insurance publicity you have quoted, it only covers the club for what it's actually or potentially liable for.

He's a child who did something silly that caused an accident. Unfortunately these things happen. Has he even been warned before not to use the skateboard there?
It's not like he did it deliberately so no he shouldn't be.

This is surely just a horrible accident.

Er no. We punish fir both the behaviours and the consequences. Dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving carry different sentences.

It's perfectly easy to see where the line is, and it comes some way away from accidentally knocking someone over by being stupid on a skateboard. Honestly, the suggestion that failing to throw this kid out forever is going to lead him to become a murderer is verging on laughable.

The club, which knows all the background facts,a has decided on what is a suitable punishment, and from what OP says it seems to have been pretty effective. It seems reasonable for them to ignore the views of what seems to be a small minority of parents working themselves up into a froth without benefit of that knowledge.

It also seems pretty signficant that the family of the woman in question are OK with her grandchild going back to the club. If the punishment is OK with them, what business do the other parents have trying to push the boy out?

@Patineur

Enormous difference between ‘being stupid’, and deliberately defiant though. Stop minimising.

Like I said, and it’s very relevant, we don’t know why the other parents were boycotting but there will be a reason. If the boy is from as it’s stated, a troubled family, who knows what learned behaviours have been displayed, we do not have enough of the facts.

Why should the child of the injured grandmother not return? That’s ridiculous.

Quite the opposite - it's their best defence against a claim, if the claim depends on negligence on their part

Did they warn visitors that there was a possibility of skating children in the corridors so they knew to avoid the risk?

Unless people were permitted to skateboard in the club, they would not need to. In assessing negligence, the accident would have to have been reasonably foreseeable by the club. You are not required to warn attendees of each and every type of accident that could possibly occur.

As it stands, one child turned up on a skateboard on one occasion and was promptly told that skateboarding indoors is not allowed.

There really is nothing to suggest negligence on behalf of the club, so it’s unlikely that the injured woman had a valid claim against them.

If you know anything about 12 year olds, you would know that, for them, being defiant and being stupid are very much intermingled. At that age, boys never think that the bad things will happen to them, and half the fun of skateboarding indoors lies in the fact that it's forbidden.

Does it occur to you that one factor behind some of the parents' actions might be that this kid is a better player of whatever sport it is than their child? Or simple prejudice? Or perhaps, like you, they are blaming him for what he can't help, namely his family.

We don't have enough of the facts, but do you accept that the people who run the club do? Why should the opinion of a couple of lynch mob members outweigh that?

I didn't say that the grandchild shouldn't return. I said I was glad that he had, that is an indicator that he and his family aren't among the boycotters and presumably accept the verdict of the club