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

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)

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

Comments

      • +2

        You sound like a great parent!

        Booby traps are illegal in the first place.

        You let your child wonder off on safari and he/she gets eaten by a lion or tiger - would it be your fault for letting your child wander off? Of course it wouldn't be your fault - it'd be the lion's fault, right? That's what I mean - for some parents, there's always someone or something else to blame.

        • -4

          So it is then my fault if I were to have my kids wonder around someone's backyard for them to kill themselves by accidental electrocution by touching an electric fence?

          You let your toddler out in the zoo, it somehow wonders into a lion's den and gets eaten up by a lion from the den. Is that your fault too or the zoo keeper's fault for not having adequate fencing to prevent this from happening?

          You sound like a great parent!

          Not sure if that was sarcasm but in case it was a serious jab at me, I don't think I would be since kids are always on your nerve…when you don't want them to be…..ie I have no patience for kids…

          Booby traps are illegal in the first place.

          No they're not…….where does it say they are….? When it comes to being proactive with anything, legality is usually the last on my mind….heh….

          Plus that hypothetical situation was to criticize Erkel's comment about parents being responsible for their kids period where I mentioned a possible scenario where the parents may or may not be responsible for their own kids period….

          • @Zachary: Like I said a toddler is too young to comprehend what is dangerous for them, so it is the parent's job to keep them away from harm and teach them to stay safe.

            It sure as hell is not a stranger's job to teach them that.

            Parent are ALWAYS responsible for their toddlers actions, regardless of situation. Period.

            • -1

              @Erkel: So in the case of the zoo scenario, it is the parent's fault that the child got gobbled up by the lion(s) in the den, even if the area wasn't fenced off and carelessly left open for lions to roam freely?

              • +1

                @Zachary: Well yeah, I mean the parent just let their kid wander off into a lion's den. The door being open doesn't even matter, as a parent you should not have let your toddler walk through that door in the first place, that's the entire point of the argument.

              • +1

                @Zachary: If EVERYONE visiting is getting gobbled up then you might have a case against the zoo. If it's just the toddler, 100% parent's fault.

                Also there are already zoos where apex predators roam freely with no barriers.

          • @Zachary: @Zachary - if you're too stupid to comprehend the difference between "having something available that could damage a child" and "having something available that could be damaged by a child", then perhaps you shouldn't have children. It would be detrimental to the race to pass those genes on.

            • @jebdra: Ok how about this scenario:

              You give a child a soft ball thinking that shouldn't do much damage. It does the opposite and made a domino effect that eventually caused such a catastrophe.

              then perhaps you shouldn't have children

              Way ahead of ya…..wasn't even planning to do so anyways… :P

        • Harambe 🤔🐒

      • +1

        I watch my kids like a hawk when we're out the house, because that's what a responsible parent does. Toddlers are too young to comprehend the world around them so the responsibility falls on the parent.

        How would it be the cage owner's fault in your scenario? If you're too oblivious to the dangers around your toddler and blame others when something tragic occurs then you should just not have kids.

        Also in your scenario the parent is still 100% responsible. Thanks for proving my point.

    • You'd make a good parent - don't give your kid a drink bottle in case they throw it and break a TV. Clearly the OP's wife had told the toddler off and they reacted. Most parents would just give in and give them what they want rather than deal with a tantrum. Some really stupid comments without thinking about it logically.

    • If you are the parent, you are 100% responsible for your toddler's actions, regardless of age. Period.

      That's not the Law though…

    • Trust me, if I could stop my toddler from screaming or behaving erratically or doing whatever random thing they do next, I would in a heartbeat. Can you please give me the wisdom, oh wise one?

  • you obviously haven't heard the phrase 'you break it you own it'

    pony up the bucks and pay for the damage you're responsible for.

  • If you have home or contents insurance you may be covered for Public Liability away from your home. Eg https://www.nrma.com.au/home-insurance/contents

  • +1

    Unfortunately for you, your kid bought you a TV…
    Very embarassing too. Welcome to parenthood.
    I know a few people who have had kids break their TVs accidentally. A game of Wii Sports anyone?

  • +1

    Pay it then skip a few birthday presents to make up for it.

  • +1

    What bottle was it? The Ozbargain Voss water bottle??

  • +2

    Lots of fun playing the 'spot the non-parent game' on child-related threats…

    • Harder than you'd think given everybodies perception of parenting is different.

    • Do they lack entitlement?

  • hasnt shaggy taught you kids anything?

    "wasnt me".

  • You are most likely obligated to pay for the damaged goods or at the very least the excess for insurance if they have it.
    Take it as a lesson learnt. Never let a toddler run free in-store. Sloppy parenting will always cost you in the end.

  • Kids are fun hey

    This is why i dont bother walking into those shops full of expensive glassware and thats without a kid.

    You break it you buy it

  • +1

    Generally speaking, parents are not legally liable for damage caused by their kids, unless the parent was negligent.

    And a toddler is not liable, even if they had the money.

    The $1000 seems like a reasonable request. Whether you pay it depends on your own circumstances and morals, not the law.

    One day, your kid may need orthodontics, and the broken TV will seem like small change.

  • +1

    I don't beleieve that parents/guardians can be held vicariously liable for damage caused by their child's actions. It's possible they may have a cause of action under negligence - they would need to argue that the lack of supervision by the parents/guardians amounted to a breach of their duty of care owed to the store. Either way, the store probably has no idea about this and are simply trying to resolve the matter. See Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256.

    • +2

      and Curmi v McLennan [1994] 1 VR 513.

    • The dangerous dog principle- I like it. I bet this kid has form for throwing stuff.

    • Don't forget that the store will likely have a clearly displayed 'conditions of entry'

      Parent's liability may be established via that notice.

  • +1

    Whether the store has accident cover or not matters not.
    Your toddler caused the damage so you are liable for the cost of repairs.

  • Go on the attack and try to trade your son in instead of paying the $1000…
    It might work or you might end up with no son

  • Even the store claim through accidental damage, the insurance company will seek recovery from you if they deem you are responsible. It will end up way more expensive than $1k.

  • +9

    My jaw dropped when I read this thread and OPs entitled attitude. Take responsibility mate. Their insurance is for them to use as per their wishes, it's not for irresponsible parents to use their store as child care and cause damage to their hearts content. The number of times I see unaccompanied children wrecking havoc in stores while the parents wander off is shocking.
    Someone's child dropped chocolate milk shake (or something brown :p) on our brand new couch at an open home for sale and refused to apologise or pay for it suggesting we use our insurance. The real estate agent was so embarrassed and shocked he offered to replace it at his cost as he should've kept an eye as well. We split to cost half way as the responsible party was too irresponsible and disgusting to deal with. He chased them later and managed to get the payment after sending legal notices and refunded us. Take responsibility for your actions and don't make others suffer for your choice to breed and raise kids irresponsibly(harsh but true).

    • +1

      I kind of have to laugh at all the people who say O.P.'s Wife should have better care of the toddler. As if a parent is walking around with a Baseball Glove, ready to intercept possible bottles being thrown. I think it is a fair question to be asked, if HN has insurance. I would do the same. Very plausible that they are out to make a bit of money out of an accident. First get the $1000 from the parents, then claim it on insurance. Double dipping. Less scrupulous then O.P.'s question.

  • +6

    In 10 years, the number of people voting for 3 would be exceeding the honest option 1.

    Condemn this thread as deserved but it is up to us if we want to breed people like OP and its family.

    This OP question should not have been asked in the first place.

  • If you do choose to pay the $1000, I suggest insisting on taking the broken TV with you.

    This is to prevent the retailer "double dipping" and charging you for it and then subsequently claiming it for a credit note from their supplier as damaged stock. It is common for large chain stores to have a clause for return or credit of damaged stock from their suppliers. Another possibility is claiming it on any insurance policies.

    • But that's probably why he only has to pay $1000. Maybe they just repair it and sell as refurbished.

  • +6

    Wait 3 months for HN to give the damaged TV to charity. Then when they ask for payment you can say 'well I expected the broken TV back' and don't pay until they provide it…

    • give the damaged TV to charity

      Not a bad idea :D

      • +1

        Username checks out.

  • My dad broke my sister's TV by throwing something (terrible aim), anyway she made him buy her a new TV. Hope that helps…

  • -1

    Lol pathetic that u actually contacted the ACCC. Defensive mode

  • You need to engage the famous lawyer Bob Massingbird.

    "I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife.

    A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard."

    Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List.

    And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket!"

  • +1

    if a todler going for a walk with his father slaps an attractive female on the ass, is the father still at fault

    • Yep

    • yes, could be interpreted as a Simple assault

  • +3

    If the toddler missed the tv and hit another childs head instead, who's fault is it?? Going by some comments, probably still HN.

    • +2

      Going by some comments, probably still HN.

      No it would be the other child for not dodging the throw….and thus that child's parent would have to pay up….

      • The parent would blame HN for lack of ninjas and child care.

      • It would actually 100% be the innocent bystanders fault for not catching the missile.

        A prompt lawsuit would follow by the opinionated feminist mother with the partially shaved head

        • I skim read that as "partially shaved beard".

          • @Daabido: it is now 2019. its fully possible for an opinionated lesbian single mother to have a partially shaved beard. which she will use with enthusiasm to ask to speak to the manager.

    • Good luck showing a court that a baby or their parents are negligent because a baby decided to throw its bottle.

      • Good to know where my toddler can practice its throwing skills without any legal consequences. Child care and those fun houses are expensive. Thanks

        • +1

          I've already posted above as have others have that neither the toddler or Parent are liable for damages unless it can be shown that they were negligent in allowing the child to do dmg.

          This entire thread has a hard time distinguishing the law and feelings.

  • +1

    Can you pay for it in discounted HN gift cards? It's the ozbargain way…

  • +1

    I’m glad that most people on this thread agree that op is responsibility for paying. Having said that in my experience working in retail about half of the customers who have broken something refuse to pay for the damage. In fact one time a security guard was called and the security guard sided with the customer and said the customer did not have to pay as it was an accident and they were let go.

    • Soon this lack of responsibility will be the norm and being responsible will be viewed as odd.

      Like how some thought price matching was a right.

      • If they advertise that they price match, but refuse to, that's false advertising

        • Not if they refuse to based on their terms and conditions…

          • @Soluble: Of course. Australian retailer and what not. The issue is when they say "that's below cost price"

            • @belongsinforums: I tried at EB games once years ago, was refused for that reason. I don't shop there anymore.

  • The camera store I was working in had a similar incident. The customer dropped the camera on the bench breaking the lens. I hadn’t experienced that kinda thing before and I said you will need to pay for the repair. He said there was no clearly signed notice at the front door saying it was a condition of entry and I said that may not be required. He refused to pay anything and my boss who was and is a total tight arse told me “Oh well we can’t do anything about it, he isn’t legally obliged to pay” I was as shocked with my boss saying to just let it go as I was with the customer dropping and snapping the lens off. (I served that customer over a 10 year period at that store and the next place I went to, but I never forgot his attitude that day regardless of his luck in not having to pay for a $300-$500 repair.)

  • +1

    I'm no expert but even if the store did have some sort of accidental cover and they got your details wouldn't the insurer reimburse them then potentially come after you for payment seeing as you were responsible for the damage? Same principle as car insurance, mortgage insurance etc

  • +5

    I believe some people should not have kids. Accidents do happen, but the OP attitude should disqualify him. I hope you teach your son better values compared to the ones you have.

  • +3

    Why is this even a question? Are people really this entitled these days and always trying get out of their responsibilities. Damn the human race is really headed downhill!

    • We learn from the best; our politicians!

  • What about the shops responsibility for their business… dont they have business contents insurance?
    But hey if you have already paid for it… oh the wells. Paying 1k for an important lesson aint so bad fam… :/

    • The shop is responsible for, among other things, selling things that work, making sure there aren't hazards in the shop, etc.

      They're not responsible for making sure OP's kid doesn't break stuff in their shop. They're a shop, not a childcare.

  • +3

    ofcourse you have to pay for it, it's your kid not harvey's

  • +1

    What's their insurance got to do with it? If they have insurance, their insurance will chase you for the $1k.

  • +1

    What kind of self respecting adult needs to ask others what to do in this situation. Jeepers creepers.

  • +1

    If you were the store owner, what would your answer to your question be?

    One should not be unjustly disadvantaged by the mistakes of others.

    If it’s a meteorite, then that’s another story. It’s called “Act of God”. Your toddler is not God.

  • The kid should have to pay !!

    1. Make the toddler work it off by working the floor
  • -1

    Unfortunately, I was at home finishing my overdue masters project.

    Wait your user name is “drdarsh” and you said you’re at home finishing your “overdue masters project”…

    Please oh please do not tell me you’re smart enough to become a doctor or studying a masters degree to become a doctor… because if you're and you can’t even figure out the logical and right thing to do in this situation…

    I’m going to cry.

  • +3

    Please don't let you kid run amok in a store guys

  • -1

    OP you're in the right. The retailer needs to child proof their displays if they are going to allow kids into their stores.

    • +2

      would you like to be viewing appliances in an appliance store behind a bullet proof glass, because some rogue kid might throw a projectile at them?

  • I'm bucking the trend I think.

    I will preface by saying I am normally fairly moral and take responsibility for my actions, but…

    In this case it feels like HN failed their duty of care. Large retailer of expensive and delicate products. Clearly know a lot of people, children, disabled people use their stores. All products on ground level in easy reach. My assumption would be that they would have insurance for breakages. That is a cost of doing business. You're in a bar and drop a glass, you don't expect to get charged for it. It's a cost of doing business and if the cost is too burdensome they should be insured.

    My strong feeling is you are not legally liable unless they make it an explicit condition of entry. I believe my lawyer wife commented on this, but can't be sure.

    So for me, if I felt my children were being wilfully destructive and/or I failed my duty of care by leaving them to run havoc. If it was truly an accident, I would tell them thanks but no thanks. Accidents happen and it is literally one of their costs. They can control it if they choose by better protecting their goods physically, or through insurance.