"Mike" wrote in message
news:47e87552$0$634$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> 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?
No, that's covered by R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50 here:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/50.html
and it's a subjective test, the principle set out in para 41 thereof.
|