My truck was vandlized by neighbor children, Estimated cost $1330.87. Got police report and kids admitted to cop to doing it. People refuse to pay damages and want to go to court because of cost. What are my chances of recovering my loss in court?

Comments

• Agreed. Small claims court should make short work of that case.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 17th, 2009

• Great answer.

  • Report
  

  by Spicy Hot on August 17th, 2009

• Thay got a lawyer and they say he said the estimate was too high and told them I needed too get two more estimates.

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• Sounds like their lawyer knows it's an open-and-shut case, and only wants to save some money. Probably the lawyer's fee is more than the damage... not a very good trade.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 17th, 2009

• I agree. I think their lawyer told them they indeed had to pay for damage but that if they could get a cheeper estimate and pay less money do it.
  bastards...people just don't want to take responsiblity of their children.

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 18th, 2009

• There's an awful lot of that in the world.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on August 18th, 2009

Comments

• Good advice. How's the weather in SF today? I love that city!

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on August 17th, 2009

• A little overcast - 60s

  • Report
  

  by Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo on August 17th, 2009

• grrrrr......we're in the 90s!!;)

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on August 17th, 2009

• since they admitted to the police that they did would I have a chance to recover the cost of a rental, court cost, research time and gas for the rental? Since they are running me around about the cost saying it to high

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• There are several errors in your answer. First, parents are only liable for the debts of their children in very limited circumstances. Second, there most likely was no crime (see comment by asker in other answer).

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• That's what I thought, I'm just very frustrated, but there was no crime? I'm sorry but the parents are not responsible for their minor children's actions?

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• Vandalism requires an intentional (or extremely reckless) act. If kids are throwing rocks and one hits a car, that is not necessarily a crime. What exactly did the kids "admit" to doing? Did the admit to throwing rocks that accdientally hit your truck? Or did they admit to trying to damage your truck with a rock?
  ...
  As for parental liability, see my comment in my asnwer.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• It was reckless, not only did they damage my property but they could have struck a oncoming car and caused an axcident. They admitted throwing rock toward my vehicle across a busy highway and hitting the car but my vehicle was directly in their "line of fire" so I wonder.
  Note: There was about fifteen or so rocks around the truck now no longer due to the yard work but my landlord and cop both saw the rocks.

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• Then it probably was not recklessness. There is a big difference between negligence and recklessness. Children are judged on the basis of other children of like age and maturity. Thus, although it would be reckless for an adult (or even a teenager) to be throwing rocks at the street, it is not necessarily so for a nine year old child. Moreover, to prevail in a civil court against a parent in Alabama, you must show that the act was “intentional, willful, or malicious.” Thus, recklessness will not suffice

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

Comments

• I'm not a lawyer so I'm curious. Wouldn't the parents be responsible to pay for the acts of their minor children?

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on August 17th, 2009

• The children were two young kids 9yrs old and 8 they were being babysat by a eleven year old girl. One of their parents were at home and the girl wasn't watching them, the two kids were seen at the edge of the road throwing rocks at my truck, I go out and there are four spots on it, one is a golf ball sized dent. The parents are responsible and the parents are the ones who do not want to pay the expenses. They say the estimate is too high and want a lower estimate but I want my truck back to it's origional form and I found someone who will guarantee the paint and repair for life of vehicle and he has done work on the vehicle before and does excellent work. Do I need to seek another estimate or do I need to stick with the origional estimate?

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• That varies by state, but generally the answer is no. The general rule at common law, which is still predominately followed, is that parents are not responsible for the torts of their children. There are 3 caveats (note: only one of them is an exception) to this rule. First, the exception is that a parent can he held liable if he or she specifically authorized the action. Second, a parent can be held liable for harm if the parent committed an independent tort. For example, if parent fails to supervise a child when there is a duty to do so and the child causes harm, the parent can be sued for “negligent supervision” and the child can be sued for his or her tortious act. Third, many states have laws that make a parent responsible for criminal fines imposed for their children’s criminal acts. For example, if a criminal court ordered the children in the above question to pay restitution, many states make the parents liable for those fines.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• Hannibal: What makes you think the parents are responsible? It does not sound like the damage was intentional. Another point that should be mentioned is that a child’s negligence is adjudicated on the standard of care of a child of like age and maturity (when engaged in non-adult activities). Thus, it is possible that nobody is responsible.
  …
  Your best avenue for establishing liability with the facts provided would be a negligent supervision theory. As for additional estimates, it is always better to have several estimates.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• Would you know about Alabama state law concerning this problem? Also they are getting advice from a lawyer (not sure if they hired him), that they said he said the estimate was too high and that I needed two more estimates. But I want my vehicle back the way it was origionally but the company that I got the estimate from guarantees the work for life of vehicle and the place they want me to go does not, what do I do? I've heard comments about the place that THEY want me to go and the comments were not good and that is from people who have had experience with that company. They accused me of being "buddies" with the guy that gave the first estimate, isn't that slander?

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• I will handle each of your questions separately.
  …
  First, what does Alabama law say about parental responsibility?
  …
  In Alabama a parent can be held liable if the act was “intentional, willful, or malicious.” However, parental liability is capped at $1,000. See Alabama Code § 6-5-380(a). If the children were aiming at your truck, then their acts were intentional. However, if the were just being kids and throwing rocks, and one accidentally hits your truck, the parents are not liable. What did the police report say in this regard?
  …
  Second, should you get another estimate?
  …
  I would get several more estimates. If you go to court you will have to prove your damages. The other side will argue that your estimate is inflated. However, you can rebut that claim by showing several estimates that are close to the same amount.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• Third, “[t]hey accused me of being "buddies" with the guy that gave the first estimate, isn't that slander?”
  …
  No. Slander, simply put, is a published false statement that causes harm. This is not slander because: 1) you were not harmed, and 2) the statement as not published (i.e. made to a third-party).

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• Okay thank you for the advice
  
  the police report says this, note I'm leaving names and location out for personal purposes.
  
  I Officier met with (me) at residence concerning damage done to vehicle from kids throwing rocks at opposite side of street and struck truck in four different areas on the side of body. (I) Identified the two children across the street to me. I met with (parent) concerning children. They were identified as (children's name and relation). (Children's name) admitted to throwing rocks at the truck. No further actions taken at this time.
  
  Would this be considered malcious vandalizm?

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 17th, 2009

• There are not enough facts to say one way or the other. But I highly doubt the children would be charged.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 17th, 2009

• I don't want to charge the kids, I want to charge the parents

  • Report
  

  by Lady Hannibal on August 18th, 2009

• I am pretty sure that will not happen in any state. Although some states makes parents financial liable for criminal acts done by theri children, you cannot charge a person with a crime unless they did a prohibited act.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on August 18th, 2009

Comments