Paying house owner cash for broken glass door?

spucey2

This is Ireland. The cultural norm would be for you to pay for the damage your son caused. End of.

Would be absolutely shocked if anyone in my work/social/family group thought an attitude like yours was anyway acceptable.

Hitman3000

donegal. wrote:

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

This, could have been half and half. Solid bottom, glazed top.

UrbanFox

Peintre Celebre wrote: »

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.

It can and does happen. Thankfully, it is a relatively rare event.

Although a rare event, some of the injuries can be very serious where the glass is not of the safety type that disintegrates in to small pieces. I remember one case where the injured party effectively got disorientated in the confusion of the incident and ended up being perforated by stiff and jagged pieces of glass that did not break - the injuries were nasty to say the least.

Kimbot

Your son broke it so is responsible for the damage, dont argue over it just give them the money to fix it up and move on.

osarusan

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.

I don't agree with this. We are not talking about a half-built house where a sliding door has just been installed in the last 5 minutes after months of passing in an out through an open space.

It is a door. Doors are just as likely to be closed as open. The son knows this, and he would be aware of the possibility of the door having been closed since he had entered through it.

It seems likely that he simply didn't notice, but that could be through his own negligence - not taking care to notice that the handle of the door was in the closed position, the entire frame of the door was now visible etc.

The fact that it was open two minutes ago doesn't mean much more than me running out into the street without looking, because there were no cars there two minutes ago.

splinter65

davo10 wrote: »

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?

“Dad I’m back from Sean’s party. Bit of a problem. I got a bit drunk put the chip pan on and forgot about it. The house burned down and 8 teenagers died”.
“Legally not your fault son. How were you to know the chip pan would ignite? Not our problem at all. Forget about it”

daveyjoe

This happened to me when I was about 17/18 too. I was a bit drunk but not crazy drunk and I ran down a friends driveway, it was very steep, I didn't think I hit it that hard but obviously I did. It was single-glazed and broke.

I was mortified, the parents were inside. The dad came out and I apologised profusely and told him that I pay for it, he didn't say much but he was obviously pissed off. I think it was about €200 which was a lot for me at the time. Went down to the credit union the next day and got the money out. In fairness when I handed over the money they gave me half back which was good of them.

Not really relevant to the thread but I felt like sharing. :-)

Hitman3000

daveyjoe wrote:

Not really relevant to the thread but I felt like sharing. :-)

Incredible that at 17/18 you took personal responsibility for your actions. I assume your parents are to be thanked? If so it's shows what a good example can achieve in the next generation as opposed to a bad example.

MFlack2012

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Incredible that at 17/18 you took personal responsibility for your actions. I assume your parents are to be thanked? If so it's shows what a good example can achieve in the next generation as opposed to a bad example.

Jesus, really? :eek: I thought at 17/18 we'd all do this? At 17, I wouldn't have thought twice about taking responsibility and paying for the damages myself. Even at school, I would have had no cash to pay it, but would have offered (not made) to do chores around the house to pay back costs.

Obviously from OP, that's not the case. Now at 30, with many younger cousins/neices and nephews, I can see the difference in me and the older ones when compared to the now 17 year olds. I know that my now 17 year old Cousin would blame everyone at the party without even thinking it could be possibly her fault. When I was 17 I would fret for weeks about how to tell me parents something like this, not because I believe they'd harm me in any way for it, but because of disappointing or possibly disappointing them.

Reading the OP, I can definitely see huge differences in how I was raised and the why behind how my Cousins behave. The whole 'don't worry mammy will sort it for you' generation.

Op, Yes it is your son's responsbility to pay for the damages. Think back to when you were 17, would your parents have asked the same questions as you? Pose this question to your parents/ his grandparents and see what they say about your son/you paying for the door to be repaired.

flatty

spucey2 wrote: »

This is Ireland. The cultural norm would be for you to pay for the damage your son caused. End of.

Would be absolutely shocked if anyone in my work/social/family group thought an attitude like yours was anyway acceptable.

I'd be shocked if my young fella owned the house, the door got broken in this way, and he went looking for money from the lad that ran into it, so there you go.
I'd probably just pay, but it'd p1ss me right off even though I'd not miss the money. I wouldn't dream of asking for it were it my house, I'd be more glad that he wasn't hurt, but look, at the end of the day, you are dealing with uncouth people. I'd pay and move on.

jester77

Have you liability insurance? That would cover such cases.

Paz-CCFC

It's amusing that some believe that a certain group of people will owe no liability whatsoever because something is "just an accident", but another group absolutely will.

If someone slips in a shopping centre or if items fall from a poorly stacked shelf injuring them, regardless of the facts of the case, they're "ambulance chasers" and they should leave it, because it's "just an accident". Yet, often according to the same people, if someone accidently bumped into a shelf and a product fell and broke, there's no question of it being an accident, they are absolutely liable and must pay for it.

In the case, if the son had tripped on, say, a loose floorboard and door saddle and been injured, and even just broke something small like his phone (let alone any physical injury being caused), there'd be no question of the homeowner paying for that. It would be just an accident. Yet, when the accident happens the other way, he absolutely should pay.

In the circumstances, I think it's nearly always better to come to a compromise (like both paying for half), instead of jumping to straight to legal entitlements and obligations (in either direction). But I think some of those straight on the OP's back, saying that this is the reason everything's so bad, no one takes responsibility anymore, "when I were a lad", etc. need to be a bit more balance in how they look at things. If you believe that, you should also believe that a homeowner needs to take a bit of responsibility and ensure that their house is safe and reduce risks to guests.

my3cents

clothpeg wrote: »

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?

We haven't heard back from the OP but I'd be very concerned about the statement I've made bold above because the cheapest window possible might lead to a very nasty accident if for some reason something similar happened again.

What would peoples LEGAL response be if the son ran into a glass door with the wrong type of glass in it and they were cut to ribbons?

the_pen_turner

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

It's amusing that some believe that a certain group of people will owe no liability whatsoever because something is "just an accident", but another group absolutely will.

If someone slips in a shopping centre or if items fall from a poorly stacked shelf injuring them, regardless of the facts of the case, they're "ambulance chasers" and they should leave it, because it's "just an accident". Yet, often according to the same people, if someone accidently bumped into a shelf and a product fell and broke, there's no question of it being an accident, they are absolutely liable and must pay for it.

In the case, if the son had tripped on, say, a loose floorboard and door saddle and been injured, and even just broke something small like his phone (let alone any physical injury being caused), there'd be no question of the homeowner paying for that. It would be just an accident. Yet, when the accident happens the other way, he absolutely should pay.

In the circumstances, I think it's nearly always better to come to a compromise (like both paying for half), instead of jumping to straight to legal entitlements and obligations (in either direction). But I think some of those straight on the OP's back, saying that this is the reason everything's so bad, no one takes responsibility anymore, "when I were a lad", etc. need to be a bit more balance in how they look at things. If you believe that, you should also believe that a homeowner needs to take a bit of responsibility and ensure that their house is safe and reduce risks to guests.

thats a bad example. a loose floor board would be negligance on the home owner. a saddle board is supposed to be there. you should expect a saddle to be there.
same as a door . the door was in its opening and not left against a wall. anyone should expect that a door would be closed

TheAnalyst_

Honestly if this went to court after both dug their heals in what would happen? The owners would be liable for the sons injuries.

Was he reckless by running into the glass door? No, he was new to the house and it was not marked sufficiently.

Glass fused light

daheff wrote: »

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

Nope a hospital with big swinging (glass) doors.:D


OP get your son an eye test he missed the frame around the glass. And get him to pay your heating bill for a few months. That way if his eyes are fine he will come to a realisation as to why he should assume all external doors are in the closed position.


Morally he should pay for the door

the_pen_turner

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Honestly if this went to court after both dug their heals in what would happen? The owners would be liable for the sons injuries.

Was he reckless by running into the glass door? No, he was new to the house and it was not marked sufficiently.

what more do you want to mark a door.
there is a frame to the door
there is a door frame
then a wall around that.
maybe some curtains etc.
probably daylight or darkness through the door

what more do you need to do to stop someone who cant work out that there is a door there

Gerry T

TheAnalyst_ wrote:

Was he reckless by running into the glass door? No, he was new to the house and it was not marked sufficiently.

Well when I'm in a strange house, the first thing I do is run around the place. Obviously anything that happens to me is someone else's fault. Can you imagine, someone closed a door, a feckin door. The cheek of them.

tedpan

Stupid thread, the OP tells a lovely story, logs off and let's a load of boardsies argue with each other. Classic..

Anyway, if a double glazed patio door is smashed, 3-400 to replace it. Not worth discussing.

emeldc

tedpan wrote: »

Stupid thread, the OP tells a lovely story, logs off and let's a load of boardsies argue with each other. Classic..

Anyway, if a double glazed patio door is smashed, 3-400 to replace it. Not worth discussing.

And you’ve just added your two cents worth to the discussion LOL.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Gerry T

Elisa Curved Trigger wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The point being it was a holiday home, 17 yr old party. OPs son was rushing and running inside the house.
I think why people are reacting to the OP is the question is about a legal obligation to pay and legally should the window have safety glass.
This suggests the OPs intention is 1 tell the home owner he's not paying because legally hes not obligated to and secondly sue for damages for failure to have adequate due care to visitors with the fitting of sub standard glass.
Let's face it a 17 yr old party in a holiday home in most cases would involve drinking and horseplay. The young lad prob stumbled into the door, and made up a story about rushing and running outside.
Morally and the right thing to do the OP should ph these parents and apologise for his sons reckless behaviour and ask was that the full extent of the damage, what was their understanding of how it happened. It's a poor lesson he's teaching his son.
I do agree you would expect the owners of the holiday home to refuse payment, but maybe their really pissed off that a bunch of teens came in, wrecked the place, broke a door and just fecked off. OP needs to parent up.

brian_t

Gerry T wrote: »

I do agree you would expect the owners of the holiday home to refuse payment, but maybe their really pissed off that a bunch of teens came in, wrecked the place, broke a door and just fecked off. OP needs to parent up.

It was the daughter of the Owners of the Holiday Home who organized the party and invited the OPs son.

Maybe it's them who need to parent up.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Gerry T

brian_t wrote: »

It was the daughter of the Owners of the Holiday Home who organized the party and invited the OPs son.

Maybe it's them who need to parent up.

I don't get your point, are you suggesting because she was 17 she is to blame for someone else breaking the door ? can you expand on that...

We don't know the full story, parents could have been staying at the holiday home, gone out for a meal so the daughter had a couple of hrs party with friends, nothing wrong with that. What we do know is the OP's son broke the door.

clothpeg

Thank you for the responses.

If anything happens in my house I make sure the kid is okay and I would contact my house insurance to pay for the repair. Imo that's what insurance is for. I just wonder if the glass door is not fitted with safety glass, insurance will not pay out?

The party was only starting, people still arriving. Nobody had been drinking yet. It was a glass door from floor to ceiling.

Gerry T

clothpeg wrote:

If anything happens in my house I make sure the kid is okay and I would contact my house insurance to pay for the repair. Imo that's what insurance is for. I just wonder if the glass door is not fitted with safety glass, insurance will not pay out?

So a 200 or 300e bill goes through insurance?

Glass fused light

clothpeg wrote: »

.
I just wonder if the glass door is not fitted with safety glass, ..

Your son hit the door with enough force to break one pane but did not damage the second pane of a double panel door.
This plus the fact that your son apparently broke the door with his face and still has a face is a pretty good indication that it was safety glass.

daveyjoe

clothpeg wrote: »

If anything happens in my house I make sure the kid is okay and I would contact my house insurance to pay for the repair. Imo that's what insurance is for.

Isn't the standard excess on a house insurance policy a couple of hundred at least? Could be more than the cost of the repair.

Gerry T

daveyjoe wrote:

Isn't the standard excess on a house insurance policy a couple of hundred at least? Could be more than the cost of the repair.

Yep mine is 450e and after a claim my premium rose. Claims only work on large bills.
It's like claiming 100e on your car insurance, nobody in their right mind would do it.