My Toddler Broke LED Screen While at Harvey Norman, Who Says They Don't Have Accidental Cover?

drdarsh on 02/01/2019 - 19:15
Last edited 02/01/2019 - 22:03 by 2 other users

My son and wife were at Harvey Norman, looking out for refrigerator when my toddler threw his water bottle on a TV which smashed the screen.

Unfortunately, I was at home finishing my overdue masters project. Little fellow has been taught lesson and we will continue to be more vigilant. Officials at store have mentioned they do not have accidental cover, we have never faced this issue before and presume that stores like Harvey Norman will have accidental cover to cover similar to other emergencies? Have been asked to pay $1000.00.

Model smashed Samsung UA65NU8000

I have emailed ACCC and Choice online. Response awaited

What shall I do, need help?

  1. Cough up $1000
  2. Go on the legal policy/ACCC path
  3. Mod: Removed (Illegal/Inappropriate)
Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

Comments

                                • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 14:54

                                  @HighAndDry: Would you accept zero parental liability in that circumstance then? since no damage is foreseeable by even you.

                                  • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 15:56

                                    @trapper: The toddler would have to be psychic. If I had a psychic baby, I have bigger things to worry about. But pray tell, how would a toddler in that situation (again, also property supervised) cause thousands in damage?

  • lonewolf on 03/01/2019 - 10:22

    This doesnt sound right to me, From the places i have worked at, my understanding is generally there will be some form of insurance you can claim the damage under, sure there might be a excess fee, but definitely way under 1000$. Especially since the item is on the display area and not packed away in a box somewhere, there will always be random issues and acts that cause damage, even people tripping / falling or perhaps water leakage from the roof etc. I think the toddler scenario will generally fall under that at least from what i have experienced when we have had random people accidently damage screens or IT equipment where i work.

    A company as large as Harvey Norman will surely have a lot of clout with their insurance companies as well as their distributors / manufacturers when it comes to things like this. Generally we have just copped the full cost ourselves instead of chasing after the person who accidentaly damaged it, but at the most i would have thought the person would have been asked to pay the excess for the insurance claim. But again Harvey Norman is a very large company with a lot of sales / clout, i wouldnt have thought they wouldnt have just been able to get a replacement / send it back.

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:29
      +6

      You are making a lot of assumptions and almost all of them are misguided. The larger the business, the bigger the risk, the higher the insurance excess (or premiums). Insurance 101.

      • lonewolf on 04/01/2019 - 10:58

        I cant agree with most of that, as the larger the companies that i have worked for, aka 50k plus staff… the insurance excess has been lower but also they have been more willing to just write of damage or destruction of property when its just TVs, monitors, computers etc.

        Currently the company i am with has staff of around 10k plus i think. The excess for damage to IT / AV gear is definitely way below 1k.

        A friend of mine works for Harvey Norman, so i can check with him but i met up with him last week where he was telling me stories of some of their returns and warranties policies etc. And IT was quite lax, i know this is different as it wasnt bought first.

        • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 11:24

          Willing to != has to.

      • This Guy on 06/01/2019 - 22:27

        That's a load.

        Insurance depends on risk factors and has options on coverage. I know of a retailer that holds 10's of millions in stock and has a $1,000 excess because they took large caveats on stock security. I know other retailers with smaller stock levels with $5-10k+ excess depending on incident factors.

        I am not disagreeing with the rest of your comments.

  • Fier2 on 03/01/2019 - 10:27
    +6

    I have a toddler and when i m by myself shopping around i will tell my 3 year s old to stay close by. Not running around, not pushing on stuff and be extremely carefull. Of course time to time , my little one will do unexpected thing like running through a homeware store and breaking a couple things. And when it happened, i just told the store owner, i ll pay for all the breakage as my kid is my responsability and i m not carefull enough. By taking up your responsabilities, most shop will appreciate and will make you pay the lower price they can do to you or sometimes will just let it go.
    So, it s often up to the store discretion to charge you or not. Maybe in your case, the store manager want to make a point about responsabilities?! Or they are annoyed by the fact your wife is looking at refrigerator and your son end up by himself next to tv?! Many reasons can played up the fact they want you to pay. Do the right thing and lesson learnt. What don t belong to you should be treat carefully. A shop is not a playground and kids should be always monitored.

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 10:52

      Look at it from a shop owners point of view. Then I think OP may not have even posted the thread. Then again it is Hardly Normal. Shouldn't be in there anyway. I went in there the other day and was told one price and within 5 mins was told the price they gave me initially was incorrect. Walked out.

      • Fier2 on 03/01/2019 - 12:42
        +3

        I m not a shop owner but i have respect for other people belongings. And i don t blame anyone for a mark up price as i know i can always walk out if i don t want to buy it at a certain price. People work for a living and some have business to make profit and get more money. I see many kids nowadays who are disrespectfull towards others and when i see a kid running havroc in a shop and the parents just laughing and not picking up the mess after them, i feel sorry for people who work there as they got hire to sell not to clean up after a naughty kid. Again if your kid break something, you should be remorsefull and make it up to the other parties.

  • ratoloko on 03/01/2019 - 10:29
    -3

    Luckily it wasn't a Samsung 2018 QLED or LG 2018 OLED.

    This is the problem nowadays, parents are not able to educate children and when they get old, we all end by having a bunch of irresponsible adults.
    For a kid to do this shows how amazing is his/her education at home.

    First, I don't think they don't have insurance. Who is gonna cover if a broken pipe damages the TVs for example? The building?
    Second, your kid damaged someone else property. The kid needs a big punishment and you pay what they are asking for. The full price is almost 2k so you are lucky again.

  • smokemirrors on 03/01/2019 - 10:42
    +8

    This comment may be criticised, but you do not have a legal obligation to pay.

    A legal concept called "invitation to treat" basically means that any store that elects to display goods is liable for any accidental damage to those goods. Basically, any store that displays a sign "broken goods must be paid for" or something similar cannot enforce such a representation. The benefit of displaying goods for customers to interact with comes with risk.

    Your ethical obligation is a different concept and one that only you can decide.

    Best of luck.

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 10:56

      So there we have it for OP. Take no responsibility.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 11:25
        +4

        Responsibility and liability are two different things

    • ozhunter on 03/01/2019 - 11:19
      +1

      Can you give a link for that?

      • djsherly on 03/01/2019 - 11:52
        +3

        I doubt there is one. Invitation to treat simply means that the advertiser is not making an offer to sell. it is the buyer that makes the offer when they ask to buy the item.

        If the advertiser is making the offer, then a situation could theoretically arise where the entire world might accept the offer, thereby placing the advertiser in breach when he or she is unable to fulfil the concluded contract.

        As far as I know, the concept says nothing at all about items on display.

        • ozhunter on 03/01/2019 - 11:56

          basically means that any store that elects to display goods is liable for any accidental damage to those goods

          So what makes you think this is correct?

          Invitation to treat or not, if you damage someone else's property, you should be liable?

          • djsherly on 03/01/2019 - 12:13
            +1

            @ozhunter: Not sure what you’re trying to say. I quite clearly said “invitation to treat” has nothing to do with public display of goods and what happens when such items are damaged. What you quoted isn’t even in my post.

            Let me state again: invitation to treat as a legal concept has nothing to do with public display of goods (or apportionment of liability should those items be damaged)

        • smokemirrors on 03/01/2019 - 20:11

          A bit of a read: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/whet…

          tldr: touching goods in a store does not constitute a change of ownership - it is an invitation to treat. The company assumes the risk of any damage to displayed goods until such point that ownership changes (perhaps when paid for at the cashier).

          • ozhunter on 03/01/2019 - 20:32

            @smokemirrors:

            tldr: touching goods in a store does not constitute a change of ownership - it is an invitation to treat

            I agree with you there

            The company assumes the risk of any damage to displayed goods until such point that ownership changes (perhaps when paid for at the cashier).

            Disagree with this part. I don't think a person has to be the owner of some thing for them to be liable when they damage it.

            That's like saying someone could "accidentally" knock over 10's of thousands worth of goods and come out scot-free.

          • djsherly on 03/01/2019 - 22:28
            +1

            @smokemirrors: Nothing in that article illuminates your point at all. It’s also written by a law student.

            What you are asserting is poor information and it’s dangerous for readers to rely on it.

            If you damage someone else’s goods then your are liable for the damage. It’s pretty straightforward. There is no question of ownership. If you break something, that’s your problem, whether it the thing you break is yours or someone else’s.

            The invitation to treat principle is designed, as per the article you linked to avoid a number of tricky situations that would arise if the behaviour of the seller was otherwise treated as an offer. Nothing to do with who’s at fault if something breaks.

            That’s a completely different area of law.

            Source: law grad

            • smokemirrors on 04/01/2019 - 12:48

              @djsherly: I'll use a different example.

              • Neighbour's kid uses my trampoline without being given permission. Damages the trampoline. Kid / family assume liability
              • Neighbour's kid uses my trampoline yet was given permission by me. Damages the trampoline. I assume liability

              The store gave the father and his child permission to view / touch display items. They assume the risk that comes with that invitation. I remember during a business law unit many years at UWA focusing on this particular point. Our lecturer made the point that "break it you bought it" type signs were unenforceable due to ITT.

              I see it differently and do not think it is as straight forward as you suggest, but happy to concede as you definitely have more experience / education in this area.

              In any case, cheers for your input / interesting discussion. Have a good weekend.

    • bobbified on 03/01/2019 - 12:19
      +3

      Consumer law, which is what you're talking about, doesn't cover the situation, but Civil liability does. So the store can make a claim for civil damages.

    • Ughhh on 03/01/2019 - 14:05
      +1

      A legal concept called "invitation to treat" basically means that any store that elects to display goods is liable for any accidental damage to those goods.

      Is that your own layman interpretation of the law?

      • smokemirrors on 03/01/2019 - 20:23

        A very dusty recollection from university 10+ years ago and a bit of google (link added above).

        But it makes practical sense - a store that takes the benefit of allowing consumers to touch goods (i.e., to get more sales) should also bear the responsibility of any damage.

        Edited to say that I wouldn't necessarily go down this path if my hypothetical child was out of control and broke something. I am merely commenting on a contractual law point of view.

    • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 12:57
      +1

      A legal concept called "invitation to treat" basically means that any store that elects to display goods is liable for any accidental damage to those goods.

      Wtf? No on basically all counts. This is laughably wrong.

  • Mrgreenz on 03/01/2019 - 10:47
    -1

    Trying to claim it on your home insurance is a dog act.

    I would probably just pay the 1000. If you wanted to fight it I would go down the route of it being their risk to advertise open tv's up close whilst allowing toddlers in the shop. It's a risk reward for them. Close up unprotected tv's to sell more units.

  • Atrophy on 03/01/2019 - 10:54
    +12

    Get the Trikies involved.

    • Boba on 03/01/2019 - 15:21

      Nearly spat my water out when I read this.

  • mrwolf on 03/01/2019 - 10:58

    Check your home insurance policy for public liability. Public liability covers you not just for the milkman tripping over your garden hose at home but also should cover you anywhere in Australia and New Zealand for liability events against you.

    • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 19:17
      -1

      You are not liable for things your toddler breaks though, so your insurance isn't going to pay a cent.

      Harvey Norman needs to insure their stock against this toddler risk.

      • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 11:39

        Since when were parents not responsible for supervising their children?

        • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 12:45

          There is no legal liability. Your insurance is not going to pay out for something you have no liability for.

          • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 12:49

            @trapper: Repeating it does not make it true. OP and wife, being parents, have a duty to supervise their kid. Their failure to do so led to damage. They're liable.

            • trapper on 08/01/2019 - 13:31

              @HighAndDry: You are also repeating yourself… parents are generally not liable for their children.

              Harvey Normal would need to demonstrate that the accident was reasonably foreseeable by the parent and that the parent was negligent in preventing it.

              ie. not going to happen in a million years

  • BEPS13 on 03/01/2019 - 10:58
    -3

    I would suggest you seek legal advice - if the cost is worth it.

    without wanting to dwell, you have no obligation to pay for a breakage in a store.

    I would also add if they keep hounding you - inform them you are making note of the repeated contact and will be contacting the police re harassment.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 11:00
      +1

      Care to cite a source?

      • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:20
        +1

        Someone already cited above that you are liable. So no idea what BEPS13 is talking about.

        • chumlee on 03/01/2019 - 13:07
          +1

          Link?

      • johnno07 on 04/01/2019 - 12:50

        Source: his butt.

  • Topdog on 03/01/2019 - 11:13

    Why should Harvey Norman have insurance for things like this. Should be more careful with him around big ticket items. Cough up

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 11:43
      +5

      I have children and never had any issue as we always told them to be careful in such stores. So I don't control my children even if they do it by accident and I should not be responsible for any breakages. Why does the onus always have to be on others because you didn't do your job properly as a parent. Get real.
      Ie. My kid runs rampant in a glassware shop and breaks thousands of items worth XXX. I just say to shop owner. Sorry bye. That seems to be what you are saying.

      No wonder why BM store owners get so frustrated at running a shop.

    • Soluble on 03/01/2019 - 11:58
      +6

      Been in supermarkets, been in liquor, now own my own retail store. You know what's stressful? Watching a parent walk off on their toddlers while the kids pick up and touch glass bottles.

      You know what I think when a kid breaks a $10 bottle of wine? My next 10 customers are shopping for free.

      • Mrgreenz on 03/01/2019 - 13:17

        You operate on a $1/customer margin?

        • Soluble on 03/01/2019 - 14:35
          +1

          Had a longer response, but not appropriate for this discussion. But overall, yes that's where it lands.

    • bobbified on 03/01/2019 - 12:29
      +6

      Give the op and his wife some slack and maybe some compassion in this obviously stressful time for them..

      It's not about compassion or whatever. We're not singling out the OP or his wife for a public lashing. (I believe OP is asking a genuine question in this post and will eventually take responsibility for the incident).

      There's this thing called responsibility that people seem to have forgotten over time. Not just in this situation, but in many others too. When something happens nowadays, it's always someone else's fault. I dare say that everyone's patience is wearing thin with those people. You'll notice that the OP of any post with a "how do I get out of this…?" question cops a public beating in the comments section!

      Sounds like a lot of people here haven’t had kids or been around toddlers,

      And this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you can't control your kids to a reasonable level, then don't bring them out into public. If you do, be prepared to take responsibility for their actions. Because if they're not your responsibility, then who's are they? Having a kid doesn't give you special privileges or entitlements over anyone else.

      You would not be saying this if it the damage was to your own property!

      • Soluble on 03/01/2019 - 13:12
        +3

        Well said, although blindly negged. People need to understand that this is other people's money. Harvey Norman's are often owned by franchisees. (From what I can tell) which means a $2000 TV broken is money straight from the owners pocket, and if anyone thinks a franchisee is making $1000 a day… Well then, everyone would be doing it..

      • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 15:27
        +1

        @bobbified I wish I could give you 100 +s

    • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2019 - 12:58

      It's not my fault… Waaaa… Waaaaa.

      Seems like Ozbargain is about to be broken with all the toddlers without rational thought running loose.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 11:25

      "right offs" lol. Too write it is. Past tense is righten off.

    • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 15:31

      @Melbournebargain - if you can't control your child, don't take it out in public, or at least not near breakable things. You as the parent ARE responsible.

  • truetypezk on 03/01/2019 - 11:24

    Use a credit card with accident coverage to pay for the item, then claim accident coverage.
    It might be fraud as well but if I remember correctly they never specifically ask you if you broke the item before you have bought it.

    • Noophe on 03/01/2019 - 11:31

      yeah just buy it

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 11:44

      Nice.

    • spaceflight on 03/01/2019 - 11:45
      +3

      They might not directly ask you however the PDS will make it clear.

      Omission of information is still insurance fraud.

    • sheamas88 on 03/01/2019 - 16:08
      +2

      You PDS will definitely state what is covered, and intentionally leaving out information when making a claim could still be considered fraud.

  • Noophe on 03/01/2019 - 11:30

    offer to buy the tv for $1000, that way they cant put in a claim that it arrived in transit to samsung in such a state

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:18
      +1

      You can check how long (time) a TV has been running. This does not work.

  • Stphen on 03/01/2019 - 11:32

    Try something different, ring Samsung and explain to them what happened. Ask how much a replacement screen would cost and if the $1000 is a fair deal? Sometimes Samsung will do something out of good will for the good publicity, so if you want to throw the dice and see what happens? Don't expect anything and thank them for their time. Cost you a phone call and some grovelling.

    Time to prove how much of a bargainer you are ;)

    • DDE on 04/01/2019 - 00:54

      Stphen, I like your suggestion very much !

  • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 11:46

    Just don't pay it. At the end of the day if you don't want to take the responsibility of being a proper parent then just let them write it off. Given how Gerry is he will send the Sheriffs to your door. That would be fun wouldn't it. Roll the dice. At least you can save up for the money and extra in legal costs once that happens.

  • mungas on 03/01/2019 - 11:51
    +4

    If your toddler can’t pay, get him/her to become their butler until he pays off the debt!

  • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 11:52
    +1

    If i bring my child to your house and she breaks your tv, would you ask me to replace it or let it go?

    • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 11:59

      Well that is the question isn't it. Would you offer to pay for the insurance excess. Or walk away. Yeah walk away. Thanks for the invite mate.

  • Therealjohndoe on 03/01/2019 - 12:37
    +2

    Go Whole hog. Ask them if they'll accept you just buying an identical working TV from them for 2k - turnover is turnover and dollar figures are what the proprietors that run the store want to see. You are already in for a grand, might as well get something out of it. Then you either keep it, or sell it for 1600 quick smart and you are only out $400. (please note figures I have pulled out of the air, I'm sure another OzB with more time to look at the numbers can give you a closer look at this).

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:46

      … so the store loses a $2000 TV (probably ~$1400 cost - generous tbh, likely higher).

      Thet sell you a TV for $2000 (so lets say $600 profit).

      -$1400+$600 = -$800 (loss for the store).

      Why should they lose $800 because of the negligent actions of a customer?

      This is how the economist at Myer have been running their business for the last decade.

    • ozhunter on 03/01/2019 - 13:33

      Ask them if they'll accept you just buying an identical working TV from them for 2k

      That's like asking for 50% off, if his kid never broke a tv. Worth a shot, lol.

    • Therealjohndoe on 03/01/2019 - 13:54

      @hypie - yeah you are right in the sense that the store will still have a cost to bear, and hard to calculate exactly without having cost price of the tv - but by that assumption if OP is only paying 1k (and if the TV costs $1400 why is OP only paying 1k) then the store is already losing money.

      There would be a price point ie maybe even $2200 where the store is still out the same cost as OP paying just 1k for the damaged TV where he then picks up a brand new one. Incentives at the very least - its extra money on the Franchisees books, big retailers ie Samsung usually give incentives for delivering on a certain sales targets, the TV could "be held" in stock until samsung adjusts pricing on the tv to clear/a regular price drop comes through that makes it cheaper to write off at the 1k price.

      All Im saying is from an ex-retail employee, there are a few ways to get around this, and incentives for the store to "help out" OP in this manner.

      • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 14:44
        +1

        Because even businesses feel like @#$# when things like this happens. No one thinks it is completely the parents fault. It wasn't an intentional act, it was a child. They are probably bearing the costs of overheads that they would normally pass onto the customer. I agree, we don't know where they got the number from. It could even be the excess as discussed previously. I'm sure some organisations would attempt to charge the full $2000.

        There are ways of getting out of this, that's why they are only charging him $1000. They can't just let it go altogether. It's a TV, not a plate. It's also something that is clearly physical damage, that they can't get around. It completely stops the function of the TV. If the kid threw it at a fridge and dented/cracked the fridge, they might say "please be more careful" and move on. Breaking a TV has consequences, this is the consequence.

        I'm sure this is a freak accident, but trust me… stuff like this happens and the retailer never finds out who it was. Parents don't see it happen or they decide to be dishonest if a Staff member didn't see it.

        I think you are being VERY generous to think they could claim $1000 PROFIT in incentives (remember, they would never have to claim this because it wasn't broken.). Like someone else said, it will likely make the next 5 TV's essentially sold at cost. Someone always bears the cost, unfortunately this time it's the negligence of the child which is attributed to the Parent.

        Also ex retail.

  • BusMan247 on 03/01/2019 - 12:56

    I like to think about it from another angle.

    If It was my shop, (PS I have a toddler/boy who is hypo) and some customer broke my TV u would want them to pay for the TV. The fact that it's a lot less.. be happy.

    Question for the OP, who did you think should wear the cost..? Genuinely curious.

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:58

      OP already said in a response that he is paying HN tomorrow.

  • try2bhelpful on 03/01/2019 - 13:04

    Expensive lesson to learn but, hopefully, this will make other parents think about what their toddlers have access to before walking into stores with expensive fragile things. Soft furry toys, OK, hard water bottles, not OK. We've all had "oh shit" moments; at least the little tyke didn't burn your house down.

    Give the kid the bill on their 18th birthday as a joke (or not).

  • minniethemoocher on 03/01/2019 - 13:15

    Contact your home insurance. It may cover this under the legal liability part of the cover. Then you need to work out whether the excess and increased premiums are worth it. Although it’s worth noting that once a minor damaged my husbands car and we were told that we couldn’t do anything as he is a minor. You could go down this path.

    • minniethemoocher on 03/01/2019 - 13:17

      Just to add I would wonder if the store could hold your child legally responsible for payment for the damages. Maybe get legal advise in relation to this.

    • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 15:35

      Was the minor under the supervising of a parent when the damage was done. If so, you should have been able to claim from the parent.

  • r3volt on 03/01/2019 - 13:41
    +3

    I never realised so many people on this forum had done a law degree. The more you know! /s

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 14:46
      -2

      I didn't know you needed to do a university degree to be knowledgeable or an expert in a topic?

      • r3volt on 03/01/2019 - 18:31
        +6

        We are talking about law, not fortnite.

        • 6828 on 03/01/2019 - 22:12
          +1

          I’m taking a screeen shot of that response. LOL 😂

        • hypie on 04/01/2019 - 01:19

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/act/ACTC…

          Let me know if you want more examples of successful Self litigation.

          • r3volt on 04/01/2019 - 15:32
            +2

            @hypie: I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with this particular incident. The argument being presented is one surrounding if OP is liable for the damage.

            Firstly, without knowing the exact details of what occurred and how, OP wouldn't need to pay anything unless it can be shown that either OP or their children have been negligent in the damage. The child is far too young to be responsible so it would fall to who ever was the guardian at the time.

            Negligence is defined as "not showing proper care".

            The shop would need to show that the parent at the time was negligent by giving their child a bottle which from my vantage point would be hard without footage showing a child constantly throwing his bottle while in the shop.

            Rows of TV's on display in my opinion constitute a higher risk of damage then the chances of a bottle/toy being thrown at a TV.

            Should OP pay? Probably but does he legally need to? Doubtful.

            This is why shops would be stupid to not have insurance which covers the risk of an accidental breakage when you have rows of goods on display. This is also only the first part of issue as there is no clear and concise explanation as to what the $1000 figure represents.

            QLD law handbook

            Children’s liability

            Whether or not a child is liable for the consequences of their wrongful acts depends on the degree of reasonable care required of them. This in turn depends upon the standard of care normally expected of a child of that age.*

            The defence of infancy may be used by a very young child in a negligence action. A young child may be aware of what they are doing and may know that the action is wrong, but still be incapable of foreseeing the consequences. In such a case, there would be no liability in negligence (see the case of McHale v Watson (1964) 111 CLR 384). The capacity of a child is a question of fact to be considered and decided in each case. Obviously, the closer a child is to the age of maturity, the more the standard of care resembles that required of an adult. Where a child engages in an adult activity, such as driving a car or handling a gun, they are expected to conform to a standard of care applicable to an adult. A child is also judged by a standard appropriate to their age where the child’s contributory negligence is being considered in reducing their own claim for damages.

            Parents’ liability

            Normally, parents are not liable for torts (civil wrongs) committed by their children. Liability will usually only arise if the child who commits the wrong was acting as the parent’s agent or with their authority, or when it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over a child who has committed a tort. Naturally, the circumstances will differ in each case.*

            Parents who know their child to have uncontrollable tendencies have a much stricter duty to control them.

            • Ghost47 on 04/01/2019 - 22:32
              -2

              @r3volt: This reply is very ironic considering your OP lol.

  • brendanm on 03/01/2019 - 13:47
    +1

    $1000 seems pretty generous considering it's a $2000 tv.

  • pformag on 03/01/2019 - 13:47

    Positive note, at least it wasn't a $8000 TV

    • h4zey on 03/01/2019 - 16:28

      probably gonna cost 2-3k

    • Ghost47 on 04/01/2019 - 22:32

      Gotta always look on the bright side.

  • myusername on 03/01/2019 - 14:53
    +1

    sell you kid to the store

    let the kid work the debt off

  • Okayy on 03/01/2019 - 15:21
    +2

    Don’t be smart arse and pay the loss.

  • Kingfabay on 03/01/2019 - 15:24

    How about buy the tv at $1000, and claim it on credit card purchase insurance?

    • Soluble on 03/01/2019 - 15:34
      +2

      I think that's been suggested 15 times so far ;)

      • Hybroid on 03/01/2019 - 15:50
        +5

        It's also a form of credit card fraud.

    • PVA on 03/01/2019 - 17:21
      +2

      already suggested before and its insurance fraud.

  • Erkel on 03/01/2019 - 15:24
    +14

    I can't believe there are people here that actually suggest parents are not responsible for their toddler's actions. These people must be the type that lets their children run and scream everywhere in public while they just ignore them. If you are the parent, you are 100% responsible for your toddler's actions, regardless of age. Period.

    If I give my baby a loaded handgun to play and he kills your kid, and I just throw my hands up and say 'Not my fault, he's too young to know a handgun can kill'. How would you feel?

    Some real stupid (hopefully not)parents in here, jesus.

    • DiscoJango on 03/01/2019 - 16:20

      the same parents that dont use the N word (no).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join