Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> "Mike" wrote in message
>> *They* are unlikely to get anything, nor are *they* likely to be
>> responsible for the damage. Theit son, however, could be held
>> responsible, or be awarded compensation (against them if your first
>> sentence is taken literally) depend on where the fault lies. He would
>> have to prove (on balance of probability) that the driver was negligent
>> and that he suffered loss or damage (including pain & suffering) as a
>> result of that negligence. If he can walk unaided after ten days and
>> there are no long term effects, any compensation he might win will be
>> quite low. Medical reports will be needed to show the level of damage.
>
> Indeed, the lad is lucky not have been prosecuted for criminal damage to the
> vehicle:
> Booth v Crown Prosecution Service [2006] EWHC 192
>
> http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/192.html&query=Booth&method=boolean
>
Thanks for that link. I like the way Lady Justice Hallett's good wishes
(P.28) are recorded in the judgment. :-)
Would an 11 year old be held to the same standard, wrt recklessness, as
an adult?
--
Mike |