Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Mum wins compensation for 'attack' on son by 3 year old!!!!!!!!!!

90 replies

DuelingFanjo · 13/11/2009 08:50

what the F

sorry but I think persuing this was just so awful. Three year old hits another 3 year old with a car jack when they were left alone in the car.

I do think it's ok to leave kids alone in cars for short periods of time but to persue a case like this seems extreme to me.

OP posts:
flashharriet · 13/11/2009 10:20

Mum's on R5 now

MadameDuBain · 13/11/2009 10:20

Total red herring about whether a 3-yo can be held responsible - of course they can't, the age of responsibility is a (still dodgy IMO) 10 so it's nowhere near 3, that isn't a question any lawyer would countenance.

Still it wouldn't occur to me in a million years to seek money because someone else's 3yo bashed mine - madness.

It annoys me that they are focusing on the "assailant" at all - if you leave 2 3yo boys alone together with a large heavy sharp object, there's a pretty good likelihood someone will get hurt.

The sofa-scribblig kid is just ! (but also hilaroious) If I was the interviewer I wouldn't have been able to stop myself grabbing the pen off him and saying "FGS stop that!"

OrmIrian · 13/11/2009 10:23

I'm a bit confused by all the people 'saying 'with a car jack!' in shocked tones. It's not a kitchen knife or a box of matches. It's just a lump of metal - would anyone honestly expect a 3yr old to assualt another child with it?

flashharriet · 13/11/2009 10:24

"We're made up because we can finally get compensation for the crime that has been committed against my son"

hester · 13/11/2009 10:25

I suppose, trying to get my head round this, the victim's mother is arguing that her child shouldn't be excluded from compensation because the attacker was 3, not 33. Whatever you think of the attacker (and I agree, it doesn't make sense to think of a 3 yo having criminal responsibility) it was a horrible attack and attacks of this kind are usually compensated by this system. Making this ruling doesn't have implications for the 3 yo who attacked, who will not be prosecuted as a result of it, but it does make a difference to the victim.

I'm not defending the compensation system - I don't really understand it - but this case if about the victim and the compensation system, not actually about the boy who attacked.

It sounds a horrific attack, though. That little boy must be very seriously distressed and disturbed .

flashharriet · 13/11/2009 10:25

Mum and lawyer are describing this as a "frenzied attack", done with intent.

Lordy.

Kerrymumbles · 13/11/2009 10:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gorionine · 13/11/2009 10:30

stupid question but how much does a car jack weigh? At 3 my Dcs needed both hand to carry a carton of milk and would not have been able to wack it arround.

I am not very familiar with the legal system, does ""Mum wins compensation for 'attack' on son by 3 year old"" means that the mother of the injured boy sued the other 3yo boy? how do things work? Surely whichever parent was supposed to be in charge at the time is responsable, not the child?

gorionine · 13/11/2009 10:33

Crossposted, thaks hester!

FabIsJustSoBusy · 13/11/2009 10:46

The claim has been refused twice.

This has annoyed me so much.

FabIsJustSoBusy · 13/11/2009 10:47

"Would have left the victime without any form of address."

Welcome to the real world ffs.

TheCrackFox · 13/11/2009 11:05

How the hell does a 3yr old lift a car jack?

TBH I am not sure how I feel about all of this. Why were 2 boys left alone for that amount of time? How on Earth did a 3yr old hit someone 11 times with a car jack?

I know accidents happen but whatever parent was in charge at the time does sound neglegent.

I am confused.

Original poster
DuelingFanjo · 13/11/2009 11:06

A carjack is actually pretty light, if it's one of those small do it yourself ones.

here

I think the ones which come with cars are pretty portable and lightweight though a 3 year old might have to use both hands to use one as a weapon.

OP posts:
OrmIrian · 13/11/2009 11:11

How long were they left? How do we know it was for ages?

Original poster
DuelingFanjo · 13/11/2009 11:12

They were left while the mum went back into the house to get her coat.

OP posts:
Pinkjenny · 13/11/2009 11:13
ruthie48 · 13/11/2009 11:20

have just listened to Victoria Derbyshire on Radio 5 live.She was talking to mother and solicitor who said it was a violent act. I'm sorry am I missing something? Why didn't Victoria ask about temper tantrums? My son when 3 used to have amazing tantrums which lasted on occassion more than 5 minutes. And why weren't the parent's of attacker charged with neglect for allowing a toddler to get hold of a car jack??

PartOfTheHumphreysGroup · 13/11/2009 11:23

It does seem incredibly grasping to be fighting for compensation over this. As has been said he's not been left with any lasting issues as a result, it's just kids.

God help the council if the little boy trips over a raised paving slab

ruthie48 · 13/11/2009 11:25

Yes heard it. Unbelievable naievety from Victoria Derbyshire. I contacted the programme to complain about Victoria's lack of questioning about toddler temper tantrums. The young researcher said and I quote" I didn't know temper tantrums were a medical condition" Sack the researcher please!!!

FabIsJustSoBusy · 13/11/2009 11:26

I think the mother would be doing more for her son if she sorted out some eye care for his squint tbh.

CaptainUnderpants · 13/11/2009 11:26

Well whatever amount they are 'given' then I hope there is some conditions that it is to used for care / counselling for the victim, or put into a trust find for him only and not for squanadering on stuff willy nilly !

I was also listening to R5 and the solictor said that becuase they have benn fighting for this compenstation for the last two years they haven't had time to focus on the counselling side for victim etc .

Please correcr me if I am wrong but that is the way is the way that I heard it.

ruthie48 · 13/11/2009 11:34

I perhaps should apply for injuries compensation. My little lad broke his arm following pretending to be Peter Pan! ( Tis a long story) Anyway he had to have a plaster cast and because at 3 children cannot express themselves in an articulate way, they are susceptible to temper tantrums. My son kicked the kitchen for about 10 minutes because he was frustrated and upset and did not at that age possess the social skills to deal with such emotion. And I am a staff nurse so I like to think I have some knowledge on child psychology!

wannaBe · 13/11/2009 11:36

have just commented on five live about this (I texted a response and they called me and asked if I would go on air).

My first response is... compensation for what? The child has no long-lasting disability, has recovered from his ordeal, so why does he need money? The mother said that it was unsure whether he might suffer psychologically in the future - well you can compensate for what-if.

Secondly I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Will all parents feel they can sue if their child is hurt by another in future?

And by suing it essentially criminalises a three year old child. A child who, given he is now in care, was clearly already vulnerable.

ruthie48 · 13/11/2009 11:36

No you heard correctly! I know one thing... I hope that solicitor represents me when or God forbid if I ever need one!

edam · 13/11/2009 11:39

So it's the mother of the attacker who left both of them in the car on their own long enough for this to happen. And her child is now in care.

Swipe left for the next trending thread