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

    • Noophe on 04/01/2019 - 08:59
      +1

      doubt they would make an insurance claim for a tv at cost around $1300, their insurance would likely be used if they were robbed or something wiped out a lot of stock

  • r4knxd on 04/01/2019 - 08:52
    +2

    A child under 10 can't be held criminally liable for his actions.
    The law says a child that young is not capable of knowing the meaning of right & wrong.
    There is no law in Australia that says a parent is responsible for their child's actions.
    YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO PAY FOR THE TV.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2019 - 09:09

      A parent IS responsible for their childs actions but in this case we are not dealing with parent vs child it's seller vs buyer as such it's the seller that is responsible for their buyers actions!

      • brenwildman on 04/01/2019 - 12:54
        +1

        State the relevant law\legislation

      • Aneurism on 05/01/2019 - 14:29
        +1

        https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/busine…

        The OP is not obligated to pay. However, the shop still has to right to make a claim against them for damages and can choose to take it to court if refused. If in court one would assume the judge would assess the situation and evidence presented to determine a fair means of dispute resolution. Various factors might could sway the decision on liability in either direction.

  • belongsinforums on 04/01/2019 - 09:22

    You should pay if asked. But the question remains - what are they going to do if you refuse?

  • r4knxd on 04/01/2019 - 09:34
    +4

    Under Australian law parents are not responsible for their children's action - no matter the age.
    Harvey Norman would have to sue the parents and then they would have to convince the court that the parent should have foreseen the possibility of the child causing damage and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it.
    Short of restraining the child to prevent him/her from throwing something or kicking something for the entire time you are in the store there is nothing you can do to prevent something unforeseen like this happening. You could be the best and most responsible parent in the world, but your toddler can still do something like this. For Harvey Norman it is the cost of doing business and their demand for compensation is purely bluff and can't be enforced.

    • gstfree on 04/01/2019 - 09:40
      -6

      It HN who have not secured objects properly and hurt the kid. I cannot see why parent is responsible.

      • Ughhh on 04/01/2019 - 12:09

        How was the kid hurt??
        How was the tv unsecured? maybe products should be in cages?

        • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 15:10
          +1

          OP's kid should've been in a cage…

    • cameldownunder on 04/01/2019 - 13:55

      If they want prevent that, they need lockers, where parents can "Store" their Object throwing toddles for the period they are shopping.

      • Ughhh on 05/01/2019 - 12:05

        Toddlers could still kick tvs around and strangle another kid with demo headphones. Maybe parents with children should be banned or may only look from a far.

  • SlickMick on 04/01/2019 - 10:02

    I totally reckon pay up. Who does the damage should pay. I'm in a kind of reverse situation with my car getting damaged while being serviced. They say "claim on insurance", I say "why should I?"

    • cameldownunder on 04/01/2019 - 13:56

      Your car serviced by Toddlers ?

      • SlickMick on 04/01/2019 - 14:09
        +1

        Yes, in maturity:

        Them: "We didn't drive your car"
        My Wife: "a test drive was supposed to be part of the service. Did you do the service or not?"
        Them: <I can't remember their next response??>
        My wife: "The service sheet says a test drive was conducted to check steering, braking and to report faults."
        Them: "Oh wait, yes we did test drive it, and noticed the damage was already there"
        My wife: "It isn't noted on the external inspection report"
        Manager: "Sorry there is nothing we can do to help you"

  • gimme on 04/01/2019 - 10:20
    +2

    Don't pay…just politely say you are unable to pay and sorry for the inconvenience. They'll just write it off or whatever they need to do. Unlikely they'll sue you.

  • tamby_is_the_rajah on 04/01/2019 - 10:51

    Start a payment plan of $5 a month, I don't like HN 😡

  • luffyex2010 on 04/01/2019 - 12:21

    Oopsie Daddy….

  • DiscoJango on 04/01/2019 - 12:21
    +3

    op: if i came to your house for dinner one night, and my child broke your tv, what would your initial thoughts be. let it slide, claim thru insurance, demand i pay etc

    • cameldownunder on 04/01/2019 - 13:58
      +3

      If you came to my house, and accidentally broke, say a glass panel of my pool fence, first thing I would do is ask my insurance if that is covered. Why else would I have insurance. If it would not be the case I would not ask anything, but expect you to pay for it.
      But what HN might be doing is cashing in from the O.P and then claiming insurance. Don't know. Just a possibility.

    • tranter on 05/01/2019 - 10:59

      OP has a 20" CRT from 1995 at home. Cough up $10.

  • A fish on 04/01/2019 - 14:09
    +4

    Let the store absorb it. Cost of displaying expensive TVs

    • try2bhelpful on 04/01/2019 - 14:10

      Who buys a tv they can’t see the screen on in the store?

      • A fish on 04/01/2019 - 14:11
        +3

        Cost of displaying/selling expensive TVs*

        • try2bhelpful on 04/01/2019 - 14:24

          That is rubbish. So if someone trashes your car when it is parked, and you know who it is, it is the cost of parking expensive motorcars so you should bear the brunt? The cost of providing a toddler with a missile is replacing what it damages. Give the kid a small soft toy instead and the issue could’ve been avoided.

          • A fish on 04/01/2019 - 14:34
            +1

            @try2bhelpful: I'm not a business

            • try2bhelpful on 04/01/2019 - 14:38
              +2

              @A fish: The principle is the same. The TVs being display units, so they will sell for less at clearance, is the price for displaying them. Damage caused by a customer, or family member, is not.

    • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 15:11
      +1

      OP should pay it. Cost of having untrained kids.

      • A fish on 07/01/2019 - 17:13

        Suicidal offspring detected

  • aoe111 on 04/01/2019 - 14:20

    But what was #3 ;o?

    • syousef on 04/01/2019 - 14:34

      Along the line of bikies no doubt.

    • jelko on 05/01/2019 - 00:06
      +1

      Click on the "Revisions" link. You will be able to see the original #3 :D

  • wkd on 04/01/2019 - 14:23

    i knocked over some tea pots at T2 once. lucky they didnt make me pay

  • syousef on 04/01/2019 - 14:33
    -5

    How can someone in the process of obtaining a Master's degree be so ignorant as to post such a question? No embarrassment either. What the hell happened to education?

    • luffyex2010 on 04/01/2019 - 19:17

      Nobody is perfect…we are created with flaws.

      I know idiots who has got double master degrees. Means nothing except that they can do certain things and study better than others but lack other skills.

      • syousef on 04/01/2019 - 21:13
        -1

        It's not about perfection. It's about being taught the basics.

        But it's easily fixed by the OzB mob. Just downvote anything you don't want to hear. That makes it go away, and makes you right.

        • luffyex2010 on 04/01/2019 - 22:13

          Erm ididnt vote…just commented

          The basics are from home.

      • A fish on 05/01/2019 - 02:35

        Created?

    • r3volt on 05/01/2019 - 00:45
      +1

      Well legally they dont have too unless a court can show they were negligent in allowing their toddler a drinking bottle.

      • syousef on 05/01/2019 - 01:30

        Where did you get your law degree? Let me guess. You don't have one. If their toddler was in a position to damage the TV, I'd bet most magistrates would call them negligent and side with the shop owner. Why did the kid have a bottle in the store if they couldn't be trusted to keep control of the bottle? Why was the child in the store if the child didn't know how to be careful around the TV displays?

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 12:46
        +2

        You might want to master a simple two letter word like 'to' before tackling the law.

      • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 15:12
        +1

        They let their toddler throw one at a TV. That's proof they weren't supervising their kid properly. It's basically an open and shut case if HN took it that far.

    • p3nf0ld on 04/01/2019 - 22:07
      -1

      Well whoever wrote that article is an idiot - sounds like an armchair lawyer. It has nothing to do with invitation to treat, etc. As part of our laws one person is not allowed to break someone else's belongings.

  • El Grande on 04/01/2019 - 14:39
    +4

    $1000 is cheap. I was under the impression you broke it you bought it (at RRP)

    Seriously. There is a reason our mothers were like don't touch anything and don't you dare break anything in the store or I am leaving you with them. Was it just me? Okay.

    • Eeples on 04/01/2019 - 23:08
      +1

      Pay RRP for a display model?

      • tranter on 05/01/2019 - 11:20

        Not only that, it should be cost to store, not RRP, even if it was a brand new tv. RRP doesn't mean much, it's just a figure that could be highly inflated. Most TV's sell for less than RRP at Harvey Norman.

        If somebody broke my TV at home and I didn't have insurance I would expect them to pay me what it would cost to replace with a similar model.

  • try2bhelpful on 04/01/2019 - 14:46
    +1

    In all honesty I think, if the OP pushed it with a sob story, the store would not pursue this. The kid is too young for intent to come into it. It depends on the OPs conscience.

    • tranter on 05/01/2019 - 11:15

      I think it's proper for OP to pay up. I also think it's proper for HN to be honest and say exactly what costs are involved. It's extremely likely they have insurance and they may have other ways of writing off the loss with minimal cost.

      Just like when you have an at fault car accident, you are expected to pay the excess and no more.

  • Aust on 04/01/2019 - 15:58

    If you have contents insurance, it covers your legal liability, this is a classic example, another is if your child or you riding your bike into a car.
    Having building insurance covers your liability on your premises, eg someone falling down your front steps because they slipped.
    Not all policies are equal, check your pds.

  • hopper on 04/01/2019 - 16:11

    You could have recorded the video after the accident and uploaded into YouTube with more hashtags and made money out of it and pay off.

  • dono2 on 04/01/2019 - 16:11
    -5

    i wouldn't pay its a accident at the end of the day

    • KanTakahashi on 04/01/2019 - 16:15

      but who made the accident? definitely the toddler should pay right?

      • dono2 on 04/01/2019 - 16:23
        -1

        so lets say u go into coles drop a bottle of sauce or wine, will they make you pay for it? 99.9% of the time no.

        its a public store these things happen, if the want to protect the tv completely from accidents puts plastic or something in front of them.

        • try2bhelpful on 04/01/2019 - 16:26
          +4

          There is a difference between a bottle of sauce and a TV. If the kid had broken something sub $10 HN probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid either.

          • r3volt on 04/01/2019 - 16:52
            +7

            @try2bhelpful: Under the law there isn't.

            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.

            • oztonyau on 05/01/2019 - 03:09

              @r3volt: This link seems to support r3volt's analysis of the legal position, i.e. that there is no liability at law for the damage resulting from the child's actions unless a court finds the damage occurred because the supervising adult was "not supervising [or controlling] the child properly".

            • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 15:14
              -1

              @r3volt:

              or when it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over a child who has committed a tort.

              OP's kid was a toddler. Does OP need to be taught that toddlers need supervision?

        • KanTakahashi on 04/01/2019 - 16:50
          -1

          you realize that a tv costs more than bottle of sauce right? and the TV in the store are for demos purposes, you just could not grab it and drop it like a bottle of wine eh?

        • horice on 04/01/2019 - 17:23
          -1

          but the sauce was not dropped someone threw a cricket ball at the glass bottle
          Big Difference

      • dtbnguyen on 05/01/2019 - 02:17

        Yes! A loan/trust should be taken out in the toddler's name. It should be indexed to inflation so that even if the parent/bank pays for the damage now the toddler will pay for the television at some point in the future. LOL

  • justwii on 04/01/2019 - 18:44

    If I am the shop owner, I would get into a contract with the little earthling, make it work for the shop when it grows up.

  • ladybug1 on 04/01/2019 - 20:59

    I want to know what the law says on this. I remember the Pottery Barn rule being a myth during one US presidential campaign, I don't remember which one.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule
    If this were a market stall or something, you'd definitely have to pay.

  • Ghost47 on 04/01/2019 - 21:03

    Well, at least you now have a story to tell at their 18th or 21st.

    I don't know what option 3 was but that sounds like the best option.

  • McBanny on 04/01/2019 - 21:04
    -1

    Humm… Sorry to hear it all but looks like you will have to pay after all.
    But hey, like couple if guys said, buy the Harvey Insurance with it, get it fix and sell it!

    It's $1988 here so you get nearly 50% off!! (wait I think I know how to get more bargain from HN… break it (to get further discount), get insurance when purchase it then have it repair it (evil laugh)
    https://www.harveynorman.com.au/samsung-65-inch-nu8000-premi…

    Now, can I ask what bottle does your boy use? Almost like a brick! I I should say Samsung's product is week? lol.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2019 - 21:14
    +4

    I think a customer is NOT legally obligued to pay for an accident in a shop, let alone your toddler's accident.
    Does anyone know whether OP is by law required to pay in this circumstance.
    I think he's not, and for good solid reasons.

    The store should have cover insurance, or cop the loss.

    • r3volt on 05/01/2019 - 00:49
      +1

      It's been posted numerous times that a court would have to show he was negligent in allowing the child to hold its water bottle.

      E.G. If theres footage of the child throwing it numerous times and parent handing it back. As it stands now, he doesnt need to pay or do anything. They can take it to court if they want but the costs and time and likely outcome would make it a waste of time.

      This is exactly the situations that accidental damage insurance is for and the shop is stupid if they dont have it.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 03:51

        Thanks for that.

  • syousef on 04/01/2019 - 21:17
    +3

    I'll repeat again. Education is dead if you can obtain a masters degree and be so completely ignorant. This should have been learnt in primary school, and before that taught by the OP's parents. It is ridiculous that a grown functioning adult that is a father no less needs to post this. That is a complete embarrassment and not just to the OP. It is an embarrassment to his parents, to each of the schools he has attended, and to the community in which he grew up. Anyone that walks into a store should be aware that they are liable for damage they cause. And clearly there are a lot of people on OzB that don't know.

    Now go ahead and down vote. After all reality changes with each down vote and you will instantly be right and I will instantly be wrong.

    • John Kimble on 04/01/2019 - 21:41
      +1

      In the shops just today (and regularly) my 3 year old sings or repeats "if you break it, you buy it" after watching yo gabba gabba: https://youtu.be/qWy5eW5T-K4

    • bdl on 04/01/2019 - 21:45
      +1

      I like chocolate

      • holdenmg on 04/01/2019 - 23:12

        Well, you can't argue with that. :+)

    • Other on 07/01/2019 - 23:21

      Child has no mens rea.

      • syousef on 07/01/2019 - 23:23
        +1

        Wow. Intention or knowledge is not required for you to be held accountable for breaking something in a store. And we aren't even talking about criminal law. This would be entirely tackled under civil law. No one is suggesting we put the toddler in prison.

        I have no idea what your background is but even my year 11 legal studies puts me in good stead to understand this. It is ridiculously foolish to use legal concepts when you don't understand them.

        • Other on 07/01/2019 - 23:30

          Wow.

          Anyone that walks into a store should be aware that they are liable for damage they cause.

          How can a toddler be aware that they are liable for damage they cause?

          You did say "Anyone."

          However @r3volt has quoted a case: McHale v Watson (1964) 111 CLR 384

          Perhaps you would like to quote a case that supports your proposition. I am sure due to your year 11 legal studies, which you so fondly recall, you could easily do that.

          • syousef on 07/01/2019 - 23:43

            @Other: I'll repeat: Mens Rea has nothing to do with it. Mens Rea is a concept in criminal law not civil. Bringing up Mens Rea was entirely inappropriate.

            Now you're deflecting by quoting another user's quote of a case that is about injury

            How about you actually read what you quoted. Let me help you:

            https://jade.io/article/65799

            This is a civil case about children playing, when one pulled out a dart and threw it into another child's eye, and the child lost site in that eye. The parents of the other child sued the child and her parents. Injury isn't the same as property damage.

            I wonder did you even skim any of the text to find out what the case was about or did you just parrot the other poster? Mens Rea is never mentioned (and why would it be in a civil case?)

            I don't have days to spend arguing with you. I'm tired of arguing on this board.

            • Other on 08/01/2019 - 00:11

              @syousef:

              I don't have days to spend arguing with you. I'm tired of arguing on this board.

              And yet you are here.

              You are right thanks to your year 11 legal studies. Of course the point remains how can a toddler understand wtf they are doing?
              Do they even have the concept of intent? They tend to crap themselves, & unless the intent was to crap themselves then a toddler has no idea what its doing. And a partys thinking can effect the outcome of a court case and the level of damages.

              From your link the HC says: "5. A child is personally liable for the consequences of his wrongful acts. That is certainly so if he was old enough to know that his conduct was wrongful - that is to say if, in the common phrase, he was old enough to know better."

              And that was the point I was making, I was just being absolutely lazy in doing it, which is something we should all try and emulate. The more lazy we are the longer we can argue for, as we won't get tired arguing.

              In my opinion I think Op should appear on TodayTonight. This would give great publicity to Harvey Norman (more than $1,000) and if the amount of effort expended here is mirrored by the general population then it could be great coffee table discussion as it would involving people singing "go hardly normal, go" which is quite the brand recognition if harvey norma was not normal…

              Harvey Norman should give Op a new unbroken free TV!!! Ring their marketing department Op!!!
              & get one for me too for the idea. #bonustv

              • syousef on 08/01/2019 - 06:40

                @Other: Harp on about my "year 11 legal studies" all you like. YOU are still the one that started this baloney by bringing up a legal concept that does not apply - Mens Rea. And you still don't seem to understand that children playing together resulting in an injury is not the same situation as bringing your child into a store and having them do damage.

  • Sammyboy on 04/01/2019 - 21:24

    Its on you. Pay the 1000. Make sure on the receipt they do not mention that the screen is damaged! You may be able to claim some sort of warranty. Or you can make a claim via your contents insurance. Hopefully you have a low excess like $500. That's a pretty cheap brand new Samsung LED tv for you!!!

    • imurgod on 05/01/2019 - 08:41
      +6

      You forgot to mention that this is fraudulent.

      • Sammyboy on 05/01/2019 - 11:48

        Hmmmm that would depend on the actual wording under accidental damage in his contents policy, whether it covers off site damage or not. Most people wont have accidental damage cover anyway. To not write anything in the invoice would be to keep the tv covered under warranty for any other problems that may occur or the manufacturer may treat the tv as a factory 2nd which means nothing may be covered for other issues.

    • John Kimble on 05/01/2019 - 12:43

      Pretty sure warranty doesn't cover toddler damage.

      • Sammyboy on 05/01/2019 - 12:47

        Accidental damage would cover breakage caused by toddler. However it is not on the normal contents policy. Would be nice to see insurance for breakage to tv screens included, just like it's becoming more common place for high end phones to include at least 1 screen repair/replacement

        • imurgod on 05/01/2019 - 13:38

          If your policy isn't accidental damage, it's pretty pointless.

          That said, it's still fraudulent to do it that way.

          This might be covered by the personal liability section of the policy (i.e. Damage to third party property),which is in your home policy regardless of whether its on an accidental damage or defined events wording. The trigger is negligence though, so that would need to be proven, but I think it wouldn't be too difficult.

          In the end, I would simply refuse to pay and walk out. They can sue me before I'll do anything.

      • dexx on 05/01/2019 - 15:08

        Doesn't HN sell some bells and whistles 3rd party warranty that includes accidental damage? If so, buy that with the TV and then claim.

        • bdl on 06/01/2019 - 21:34

          … when the insurance policy begins after the date of damage :P

  • cantstanzya on 04/01/2019 - 23:07
    +1

    I wouldn't pay.

  • myfuturej on 04/01/2019 - 23:18
    -4

    Wtf! This is Australia, not some 3rd world dipshit country. Don’t pay! Surely, HN has insurance for these types of events, even my husband’s company with 12 employees have accidental cover. If you need help, DM me.

    • myfuturej on 05/01/2019 - 00:32
      +3

      Ok neg me. But I can assure OP, you don’t need to pay a single cent to HN. I have extensive experience with dealing with Samsung in my job, in my opinion, they are the best in honoring ACC. There is no way they would even allow such nonsense that HN is asking you. As mentioned here, they will just replace this unit for the retailer without any questions.
      Don’t pay!

      • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 09:15
        +5

        The ACC is the Australian Crime Commission. Are you quite sure about that. Maybe you are confused with the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission?

        • Other on 07/01/2019 - 23:25
          +2

          Due to the serious nature of the crime the ACC are now on the case!

        • myfuturej on 09/01/2019 - 22:23

          Australian Consumer Law.

          • HighAndDry on 10/01/2019 - 09:21
            +1

            @myfuturej: Hahahaha, for OP's kid breaking something?

            • myfuturej on 11/01/2019 - 13:16

              @HighAndDry: Nope, for Harvey Norman returning the product to Samsung where they can get free replacement or refund. Meanwhile, HN charges the customer $1000 and get away with it.

              • HighAndDry on 11/01/2019 - 13:19

                @myfuturej: Doesn't matter. If you crash into my car and cause $1,000 worth of damage, even if I'm friends with my mechanic and he fixes it for me for free, you still owe me $1,000.

                That's even common - if you crash into someone, and cause damage, you have to pay them the damages even if they don't get the car fixed and decide to pocket the money.

                • myfuturej on 11/01/2019 - 15:40

                  @HighAndDry: Your analogy is not correct. You are an individual, while HN is a large Australian multinational corporation. Say someone breaks your car or TV or whatever, now that’s some kind of loss that will sting, but for HN, that’s just pocket money, plus the fact is that Samsung will surely want to maintain good relations with them hence will simply replace the product. Once again, a few broken TVs or appliances will have zero impact to one of the world’s most successful corporation.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join