Paying house owner cash for broken glass door?

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...

donegal.

at no point does the op say it was a large unmarked clear glass door

the_pen_turner

I don't understand this reasonable expectation that the door was open.
Every house I have ever seen has some kind of door dividing inside and out. . In this country doors are closed 90 percent of the time. You should always assume that a door is closed and work on that basis.

I could understand if it closed as he was about to go through.

You would have to Hit the glass at a high speed to break it.

In my view. The kid is at least 90 percent responsible

emeldc

donegal. wrote: »

at no point does the op say it was a large unmarked clear glass door

Nor does the OP say that it was covered in 'danger' stickers and that the young lad must have been blind in order to run in to it.

listermint

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

Erm, its not a fallacy the forum is legal folks giving legal opinions so yes id expect that to colour opinion...


Weird that you would think that would not be the case?

Its almost as if you think that is a bad thing ??

Billgirlylegs

seamus wrote: »

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.

I'm slightly suspicious that things haven't happened quite as they have been described in the OP.
I think that the bill should be paid by whoever broke the door.
The parents weren't there
Teenagers
Hmmmm
Party?

Blacktie.

Billgirlylegs wrote:

I'm slightly suspicious that things haven't happened quite as they have been described in the OP. I think that the bill should be paid by whoever broke the door. The parents weren't there Teenagers Hmmmm Party?

It literally said they where at a party.

dr.fuzzenstein

OK, person runs through a glass door and sustains cuts?
I'd say there's €25k in it at least.
It used to be you pay for what you break, but this is looooong gone, you get paid for injuries however sustained unless someone does something spectacularly stupid, is trying to pull a fast one or the claim is downright fraudulent. And even then you might get lucky.
But genuine injury sustained?
That's solid gold right there.

emeldc

Think restaurant table and that damned table leg that no one told me about :rolleyes:

daheff

seamus wrote: »

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.

Was he born in a barn??? :eek:


look i think that the young lad should be paying for the glass. I think the house owners are trying to meet half way by saying they only want a cheap pane that they'll install themselves.

Billgirlylegs

What kind of money are we talking?
If they are looking for €100-200-300 would you consider paying it to close the matter off.?
What kind of relationship does the OP have with the house owner?
Do you think they are trying to "do" you?