Paying house owner cash for broken glass door?

clothpeg

Would like advise on the following:

Son (17) was at a party in people's holiday home. (My son was invited by the daughter of the people who own the house, it was her party.) At the start of the party he saw a friend arriving and rushed outside. A sliding door that had been open two minutes before was now closed. He ran into it, the glass on his side of the door broke. (Double glass, the other side was intact). My son only got a few scratches on his forhead and hand.
The people owning the house now want to put in new window themselves and are asking us to pay for the window. They will put in the cheapest window possible. (They are in the process to do up the house in order to sell it soon.)

Do I have the obligation to pay? Why they do not go to their house insurance?

Should that door have been fitted with safety glass?

Ken.

If their wasn't suppose to be guests at the house then the daughter is 50% responsible. If you want to keep things harmonious you could put this to them and offer to pay 50%.

coylemj

If there was no stripes or an opaque pattern on the glass to alert someone to it's existence, I'd tell them to bugger off. Mention the possibility of your son getting headaches, seeing double and having sleepless nights, just watch them run for cover.

splinter65

Do you not want to pay for the glass door your son broke?

Your son broke it so you should pay for it end of! Can’t believe this attitude! He must have ran into it at some pace also to have broken it!

Chancer3001

How is this even a discussion.

Your son broke it. It was his fault

Why shouldn't you pay for it.

1000% up to you to pay it.

What if their daughter came to your house and accidentally broke a window . Shouldn't she pay for it ?

JustJoe7240

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How is this even a discussion.

Your son broke it. It was his fault

Why shouldn't you pay for it.

1000% up to you to pay it.

What if their daughter came to your house and accidentally broke a window . Shouldn't she pay for it ?

The irony of "Chancer3001" calling out an absolute chancer

I agree 100% with the above though, How you can't see the son is at fault and liable for the damage is beyond me.

Tiddlypeeps

Morally the right thing to do is to pay to replace it. If I break something belonging to someone else, accident or no, I feel like it's my responsibility to replace it.

Legally it likely depends on a whole bunch of variables. Odd's are if you just refused to pay then that would be the end of it, as the cost of coming after you for it would likely not be worth it.

Particularly because they are being reasonable and replacing with the cheapest option available I'd recommend just paying it. You might have an argument to make if they were being jerks and looking to replace the whole door or something insane. But it seems they are being decent about it so just pay up if you can.

Mr. Incognito

Pay for the damage your son caused

Everything else is irrelevant.

crossmolinalad

Hmm weird
Had a time ago a similar problem with a window in a garage
Garage was renovated into a granny house , they take out the doors and put in place a window from floor to sealing
Joke was just finnised when I came in and drove with my bike true the window
I could not see it was glass
Had to pay for it but took it to court didn't understand exactly what the judge ment but the end of the story was not to pay for it because window was not up to building regs
Window had to be safety glass and it was not and even had no marks on it , could not see it was a window just looks like open doors
Owner of the window even had to pay for the damage of my bike but I told him leave it , its okay

Hitman3000

Your son caused damage, pay up. Don't set a crap example for him. Make him work off the cost in some manner.

Victor

clothpeg wrote: »

Should that door have been fitted with safety glass?

Doors and windows that have glass below a height of about 1 metre should be safety glass. But safety glass does break. There should be markings at eye level to let people know that the door is / isn't open.

I would only be paying for a pane of glass - maybe €100 - not a new window.

coylemj

monkeysnapper wrote: »

In my opinion it would come down to cost ...

Bearing in mind that this is a Legal forum, what has the cost of the repair got to do with it?

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

Bearing in mind that this is a Legal forum, what has the cost of the repair got to do with it?

But the cost of what? Is there joint liability?

PS This thread is giving me flashbacks to the guilt of the time, aged 9, that I pulled the handle off the neighbour's back door.

jimmycrackcorm

splinter65 wrote:

Do you not want to pay for the glass door your son broke?

Hang on though. How is it that the glass got broken? For someone who is unfamiliar with the layout it's very easy to go through a badly designed full glass door.

coylemj wrote:

Bearing in mind that this is a Legal forum, what has the cost of the repair got to do with it?

I wonder how a court would deal with it when there are no end of videos on YouTube of people going through these doors that have nothing on them to indicate there is glass.

endacl

I've a neighbour like you, OP. Her son knocked my wing mirror off with a football.

Same shyte. "Why should I pay. He's only a young fella. He didn't mean to do it. Can you not claim it off your insurance?"

Pay up. You can dock his pocket money. On the other hand, if you dig your heels in, there's no way to compel you to do the right thing. But then you'd be like my neighbour.

None of my other neighbours like my neighbour. Guess who had to dig her own snow, all by herself? Twat.

El Weirdo

He's 17. He should be paying for it himself, tbh.

NUTLEY BOY

A few thoughts.

The 17 YO does not have to pay for the glass unless he was somehow at fault i.e. negligent.

Even if the 17 YO had been negligent the OP, as his mother, has absolutely no legal liability - vicarious or otherwise.

The attitude of "you broke you pay for it" does not apply in this situation. This was a house not an antiques shop. One might infer from some posters that this was a strict liability situation.:rolleyes:

Prima facie, on the evidence, the door in question is a dangerous hazard. The actual presence of the door needs to be made obvious to all who might reasonably be expected to pass through that place. Otherwise, it is actually something of a trap.

The dangers of such doors and the consequences of collision with them are well and long known. Failure by the occupiers of the house to bend their minds to this reasonably foreseeable risk almost puts this in to the evidentiary category of an event in which you could argue res ipsa loquitor.

A reasonably minded person could take basic and effective steps to nullify this reasonably foreseeable event by the use of some decorative stickers.

A few years ago I dealt with a few cases of exactly this type of scenario. In some cases the "pedestrians" were very seriously injured. We never defended those cases as the transparent nature of such doors was considered to constitute a premises defect. OP's son is a lucky boy to have escaped so lightly.

The owner's should refer the matter to their own household insurers. If the insurers think that there has been negligence they can exercise subrogation rights against the 17 YO personally. I don't see that happening.

FAILSAFE 00

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A few thoughts.

The 17 YO does not have to pay for the glass unless he was somehow at fault i.e. negligent.

Even if the 17 YO had been negligent the OP, as his mother, has absolutely no legal liability - vicarious or otherwise.

The attitude of "you broke you pay for it" does not apply in this situation. This was a house not an antiques shop. One might infer from some posters that this was a strict liability situation.:rolleyes:

Prima facie, on the evidence, the door in question is a dangerous hazard. The actual presence of the door needs to be made obvious to all who might reasonably be expected to pass through that place. Otherwise, it is actually something of a trap.

The dangers of such doors and the consequences of collision with them are well and long known. Failure by the occupiers of the house to bend their minds to this reasonably foreseeable risk almost puts this in to the evidentiary category of an event in which you could argue res ipsa loquitor.

A reasonably minded person could take basic and effective steps to nullify this reasonably foreseeable event by the use of some decorative stickers.

A few years ago I dealt with a few cases of exactly this type of scenario. In some cases the "pedestrians" were very seriously injured. We never defended those cases as the transparent nature of such doors was considered to constitute a premises defect. OP's son is a lucky boy to have escaped so lightly.

The owner's should refer the matter to their own household insurers. If the insurers think that there has been negligence they can exercise subrogation rights against the 17 YO personally. I don't see that happening.

What.

Dial Hard

Ah come off it NB. I realise this is Legal Discussion, but there's the "What am I legally required to do here?" answer and the "What's the right thing to do here?" one and personally I think it's a bit of a no-brainer.

NUTLEY BOY

endacl wrote: »

I've a neighbour like you, OP. Her son knocked my wing mirror off with a football.

Same shyte. "Why should I pay. He's only a young fella. He didn't mean to do it. Can you not claim it off your insurance?"

Pay up. You can dock his pocket money. On the other hand, if you dig your heels in, there's no way to compel you to do the right thing. But then you'd be like my neighbour.

None of my other neighbours like my neighbour. Guess who had to dig her own snow, all by herself? Twat.

Somewhat unfair given that the facts of this scenario are not on all fours with the OP's issue.

BTW what age was the footballer ? If he was old enough to know better he should be pinged for the damage to the mirror.

Otherwise, I would share your irritation with the classical "they're only bleedin childer" response :mad:

listermint

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Somewhat unfair given that the facts of this scenario are not on all fours with the OP's issue.

BTW what age was the footballer ? If he was old enough to know better he should be pinged for the damage to the mirror.

Otherwise, I would share your irritation with the classical "they're only bleedin childer" response :mad:

What the fk has age got to do with it, if your child goes around damaging your neighbours property then its up to you to put it right, the way it was before.


Chancers like yourself make horrible neighbours.

Its a good reason to move out to the countryside some people are absolutely ignorant of the world around them they only see whats in their own sphere.

NUTLEY BOY

Dial Hard wrote: »

Ah come off it NB. I realise this is Legal Discussion, but there's the "What am I legally required to do here?" answer and the "What's the right thing to do here?" one and personally I think it's a bit of a no-brainer.

To you, it might be a "no-brainer" morally.

As you correctly point out this is indeed a legal discussion thread. So, what are your views on that aspect of matters ?

listermint

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

To you, it might be a "no-brainer" morally.

As you correctly point out this is indeed a legal discussion thread. So, what are your views on that aspect of matters ?

And we wonder why children now have less and less respect for Authority.....

seamus

Reasonably common accident that could happen to anyone, no overt negligence on the part of your son and certainly no malice intended.

Ethically I wouldn't expect a visitor to pay for accidental damage in my home, it seems like a very unreasonable request on their part.

Forget about it being a 17 year old at a party. If it had happened to an adult whom you had invited into your home, would you be chasing them to pay for the window? I know I wouldn't.

Legally I doubt there's any way to recover this cost from you.

hmmm

Just be careful when delivering the solicitors letter through the broken window as your opening legal salvo, you don't want to stick your hand through the other window by accident.

NUTLEY BOY

listermint wrote: »

What the fk has age got to do with it, if your child goes around damaging your neighbours property then its up to you to put it right, the way it was before.


Chancers like yourself make horrible neighbours.

Its a good reason to move out to the countryside some people are absolutely ignorant of the world around them they only see whats in their own sphere.

If the footballer was old enough to be capable of being negligent he is old enough to pay for the damage to the mirror.

A child who damages property does not impose automatically either a direct or a vicarious liability on a parent. If the child was acting as an agent of the parent it would be different.

P.S. Who is the "chancer" to whom you refer ?

emeldc

Jeez. I dunno. If I was the owner of the house I'd be happy that the young lad didn't slit a main artery and bleed to death on the spot. It's just a fuggin' window. Nobody died thank God. I'd be putting it down to experience and fixing it myself. And then banning any more party's. It doesn't look like the current owner is going to do that though.

Gerry T

You have a responsibility to teach your child right from wrong, so I'll help you here.
Son goes to friends house, sees parent bringing in lots of shopping bags and he helps bring them in. That's a good thing, he should do more of this.
Your son goes to a friends house and breaks something, even by mistake. That's a bad thing, wrong, he should do less of this. He should offer to pay to fix the broken object, alot of times he won't have to, offering will usually end things.

Now that's the right and wrong lesson, I'm guessing your parents don't know this.

We need less ambulance chasers, and people saying Im not legally obliged FFS. What are you expecting, your child to do a house induction course and then a risk assessment based on their planned activity with double parental signoff :-?
if he was extremely injured then an insurance claim may be necessary to pay Hugh bills, otherwise you pay..read lesson above again if your confused.

How can such a very very basic question warrant debate.

Another option is to tell your son to cut back on the booze and stumbling into glass doors.

ford2600

clothpeg wrote: »

?

Should that door have been fitted with safety glass?

In an about door is defined as a "critical location". Depending on pane size it should conform to Class B or Class C of BS 6206.

The fact your son wasn't cut makes it possible it was Class C. I wouldn't be replacing with the cheapest pane they can find either, whoever pays. A good glass company should know this anyhow

seamus

Gerry T wrote: »

We need less ambulance chasers,

You mean like people expecting house visitors to pay damages for honest accidents? I agree.

Dial Hard

seamus wrote: »

You mean like people expecting house visitors to pay damages for honest accidents? I agree.

One of my brother's friends hoofed a football through our porch window back in the day. That was an "honest accident" but his parents still offered to pay for it.

Peintre Celebre

Have to laugh at some of the responses to this thread..'honest mistake', 'could happen anyone'..i dont know a single person that ever broke a glass door from walking into it by some of the responses here you'd swear it was as common as someone breaking a glass in a pub. For god sake he 'rushed outside', probably ran full pelt into the door. Pay for the door.

splinter65

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Hang on though. How is it that the glass got broken? For someone who is unfamiliar with the layout it's very easy to go through a badly designed full glass door.



I wonder how a court would deal with it when there are no end of videos on YouTube of people going through these doors that have nothing on them to indicate there is glass.

The boy says he walked through the door. That’s how it got broken.

hullaballoo

This is an interesting debate because from a legal perspective, the liability is on the occupier but there's a strong cohort who believe that accidental damage to another's property through no fault should still be paid for by the person who accidentally, through no fault, did the damage.

Large panes of totally transparent and colourless glass have been causing injuries for as long as they've existed. That's why there are eye-level manifestations on them in most environments:



However, they are unusual in a residential setting despite there being no obvious legal reason for this.

On the one hand, I cannot understand the mindset of someone whose dangerous glass door caused another person to suffer an injury would be demanding money. On the other hand, I can see why it would be socially desirable for the OP's son to offer to pay at least in part for accidental damage that may have been due to clumsiness or inattention.

It's honestly a bit of a head-scratcher afaic.

Peintre Celebre

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is an interesting debate because from a legal perspective, the liability is on the occupier but there's a strong cohort who believe that accidental damage to another's property through no fault should still be paid for by the person who accidentally, through no fault, did the damage.

Large panes of totally transparent and colourless glass have been causing injuries for as long as they've existed. That's why there are eye-level manifestations on them in most environments:



However, they are unusual in a residential setting despite there being no obvious legal reason for this.

On the one hand, I cannot understand the mindset of someone whose dangerous glass door caused another person to suffer an injury would be demanding money. On the other hand, I can see why it would be socially desirable for the OP's son to offer to pay at least in part for accidental damage that may have been due to clumsiness or inattention.

It's honestly a bit of a head-scratcher afaic.

How do you know there was no fault of the lad? He wasnt exactly pushed into the door. 'Rushed outside', if he was running in the house outside would that not be careless?

hullaballoo

He couldn't see the transparent colourless glass and had no reason to suspect it was there?

davo10

This says more about Irish society and the way we now think than it does about the law. If my son broke a friend's door by running into it while inside, I'd be embarrassed that they would have to come and ask me to pay, I would think I should have offered before they had to ask. Asking what the legal standing is on this, reflects poorly on the op, the son should not have been running in the house, if he was walking the door is unlikely to break.

listermint

I guess some of us were raised differently and some of us grew entitled as we were raised.


There are simple explanations to attitudes.

davo10

listermint wrote: »

I guess some of us were raised differently and some of us grew entitled as we were raised.


There are simple explanations to attitudes.

Is there any hope for the son if the op says "legally I don't have to pay"? Next time he's at a party, why stop at a door?

emeldc

I wonder who paid for this glass door. Get a grip lads.

https://www.thelocal.se/20130826/49834

or this one

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/man-bleeds-to-death-after-falling-into-glass-door-34147936.html

Peintre Celebre

hullaballoo wrote: »

He couldn't see the transparent colourless glass and had no reason to suspect it was there?

Had no reason to suspect it was there :pac:. What did he think the house just had a big ****ing opening to connect it to the outside with no window or door

Gerry T

seamus wrote: »

You mean like people expecting house visitors to pay damages for honest accidents? I agree.

I did say IMO if a young lad offered to pay for the damage the majority of people would say its ok. I don't know many that would take money. But he should feel obliged to offer to pay at least.

seamus

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

Had no reason to suspect it was there :pac:. What did he think the house just had a big ****ing opening to connect it to the outside with no window or door

If you read the OP, the son entered through the open door and someone else then closed it. So he had no reason to suspect that the door wasn't still open.

It's incredibly common.

At the end of the day, this is why you buy insurance. If it was the home-owner's child who broke the window, would they make the child pay for it, or would they just claim from insurance?

This is a "social graces" question. Social convention would dictate that the person who had the accident must offer to pay, and the homeowner must refuse to accept payment.

If either party doesn't play their part in this little farce, then they're apparently in the wrong.

hullaballoo

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

Had no reason to suspect it was there :pac:. What did he think the house just had a big ****ing opening to connect it to the outside with no window or door

Easy there fella.

Many houses up and down the country have a glass sliding door outside of the main front door.

The OP stated it was open minutes prior to the incident so it's conceivable that her child did not know there was a risk there'd be a big pane of glass in his way as he was rushing to greet his friend.

emeldc

Gerry T wrote: »

I did say IMO if a young lad offered to pay for the damage the majority of people would say its ok. I don't know many that would take money. But he should feel obliged to offer to pay at least.

The owners are looking for the money. If he offered to pay it they would gladly accept it by all accounts.
Maybe he should pay it and then sue the miserable fcukkers

listermint

Actually considering the forum, the views in here would be dicated by those that would benefit from a claim action. (the profession) so the view is bound to be coloured somewhat.

Gerry T

emeldc wrote: »

The owners are looking for the money. If he offered to pay it they would gladly accept it by all accounts.
Maybe he should pay it and then sue the miserable fcukkers

Well there's no point in offering if you have no intent to pay. I feel, in most cases, you pay for what you break. I can't think off hand where you wouldn't, but there's prob a situation. Breaking someone's glass door isn't one of them.
I agree it does seem stingy looking for the money, but maybe these people have very little money. An insurance claim isn't reasonable, there's prob a 250 or 500 euro excess and the premium would go up the following year. Maybe the parents have a story to tell. Could be the party got out o hand and their house got trashed, and the broken door was a last straw, we don't know. What we do know is a person's son broke a glass door and they come on looking to see if they are legally bound to pay :rolleyes::rolleyes: I'll leave it at that.

Peintre Celebre

hullaballoo wrote: »

Easy there fella.

Many houses up and down the country have a glass sliding door outside of the main front door.

The OP stated it was open minutes prior to the incident so it's conceivable that her child did not know there was a risk there'd be a big pane of glass in his way as he was rushing to greet his friend.

Sorry lads I did miss that bit

hullaballoo

listermint wrote: »

Actually considering the forum, the views in here would be dicated by those that would benefit from a claim action. (the profession) so the view is bound to be coloured somewhat.

Oh, the ol' You-would-say-that-wouldn't-you? line... it's been a while. :pac:

If you're trotting out that fallacy, you're no longer making a point for discussion.

You're merely casting aspersions against all of the contributors to this forum and the entire legal profession in one ill-considered and vapid throw-away remark.

dolallyoh

Pay up - then go find a slippery supermarket floor...