Isabella Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Thanks so much for your input - greatly appreciated! I know I can always come here for an impartial opinion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ. Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I guess I don't understand why the bike wasn't insured and if it wasn't insured why it was ridden. I think the owner of the bike is responsible and she should have kept it insured until it was not her property any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindyz Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I would go with option #2 or #3. I think farming mom and dad should be relieved that the boy wasn't hurt more seriously and have a lawsuit on their hands. I also don't understand why it wasn't insured and consider that to be the fault of the motorbike's owner. It's my fear that my son go to a friend's house and ends up in a situation like this. It's up to the hosts to ensure the safety of the guests on their property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 From a legal standpoint, I think the parents are responsible for everything, including the 16 yo boys medical bills since the accident occurred on their property. The boy was being as careful as could be expected and had an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Mom4 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not sure from the story who is getting the money. If the bike belongs to DD20, why would she be paying anyone damages? One of the hazards of letting other people ride your uninsured motorbike is that "something could happen" to the bike. Sounds like DD20 is probably out of luck. It's just a good thing you aren't all having to pay huge medical bills for the young man who was injured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReader Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 agreeing with those who say the bike should just be left alone, as the dd had it uninsured, the boy had an accident, and the family is quite lucky that the boy, rather than ask the family to pay for his medical bills, offered to pay for the bike he wrecked. If either of these issues needs pursuing, would the family's homeowners insurance cover it? I know that you can file a claim against things like that sometimes.....perhaps that should be investigated, for both the medical bills and the bike? Maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I guess I don't understand why the bike wasn't insured and if it wasn't insured why it was ridden. I think the owner of the bike is responsible and she should have kept it insured until it was not her property any longer. From a legal standpoint, I think the parents are responsible for everything, including the 16 yo boys medical bills since the accident occurred on their property. The boy was being as careful as could be expected and had an accident. :iagree: The young man shouldn't be responsible for anything. Your dh should consider himself lucky that the guy didn't file a lawsuit against your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeschoolMamaOfTwo Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'd say the farm parents pay the boy's medical bills and the owner of the bike is just out of luck if she allowed them to ride it. If they WANT to give her money to cover some of what she would have gotten out of the bike, then fine, but I don't think she should expect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Bike should not have been ridden uninsured, period. And I agree w/Cat, be grateful parents aren't being sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Who is getting paid? Why do they need to raise $4000 for it? Was it not yet paid off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I, too am confused about who would be getting the money. The owner is responsible for the bike and choose not to get it insured. She is out the bike's value. If the boy who is injured has medical insurance, then they will have to determine if this is an accident they would cover. If they do, fine. I would think the owner of the bike would be glad to pay the deductible in order to avoid a law suit (although she should have a release signed at that point). If the injured boy's medical insurance either doesn't exist or decides not to pay, then I would advise the boy's parents to talk with an attorney for help in determining who is liable for the medical bills. It seems it would either be the a) owner of the farm (their homeowners insurance may pay, if the owner wasn't deemed negligent) or the owner of the bike or c) the 19 yo who told them that it was okay to ride the bike. It sounds as if the injury has potential to be serious due to the fact that the boy was referred to a specialist. If I were his parents, I'd make sure that I had a way to get those medical claims paid until a complete recovery took place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristineW Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Boyfriend pays nothing. Parents volunteer to pay boyfriends medical bills--very likely that health insurance will ask what happened and come after their home insurance. DD20 and parents share the loss. Christine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdj2027 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Okay, what is wrong with me? If my inexperienced 16 year old son had ridden the bike than we would pay the medical cost and the cost of the wrecked bike. As soon as our son had recuperated from incurring his dear parents' combined wrath he would have worked his rear off to repay us. Why is a 16 year old presumably without a license and the skills riding the motorbike of someone who is not present? I would have been furious if our son had used someone's possession without explicit permission by the owner. I would have even been more furious for not using his head and thinking through the consequences of his actions prior to acting. Off to inquire from our 17 year old what he would have done :crying: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I wouldn't be furious at my kid. I think I'd just be glad he was alive. Okay, what is wrong with me? If my inexperienced 16 year old son had ridden the bike than we would pay the medical cost and the cost of the wrecked bike. As soon as our son had recuperated from incurring his dear parents' combined wrath he would have worked his rear off to repay us. Why is a 16 year old presumably without a license and the skills riding the motorbike of someone who is not present? I would have been furious if our son had used someone's possession without explicit permission by the owner. I would have even been more furious for not using his head and thinking through the consequences of his actions prior to acting. Off to inquire from our 17 year old what he would have done :crying: I think I would have just been glad he was alive. He wasn't riding without permission. He wasn't being reckless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I wouldn't expect the 16 yr old boy or his family to pay anything. If it was my son, I would be upset he exercised such poor judgement but he's only 16 years old. I would have expected better judgement from the hosts, especially the parents, and I would have let them know that. I grew up on a farm and we knew no one but family was allowed to ride the four wheelers and such. The host family screwed up by letting a bunch of teenagers ride their motorbikes, especially if they're uninsured. I feel it's 100% their responsibility to pay for any damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harriet Vane Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Boyfriend doesn't owe anything. He had permission to ride and was, by all accounts, doing so responsibly. Owner's financial status is irrelevant, as is boyfriend's religious beliefs. Farm family owes boyfriend whatever it takes to put his hand and his body back together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 In regards to your added information in the OP - I still say 16 yr old boy owes nothing. It doesn't matter that he's not out medical expenses. He was given permission to ride in an area the host family knew could be unsafe. Host family is still 100% responsible in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuirkyKidAcademy Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 As I read it, the bike hadn't been fully paid for/paid off? That's why someone must come up with $4000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 As I read it, the bike hadn't been fully paid for/paid off? That's why someone must come up with $4000? I read it as the bike was worth that much and the dd was going to sell it because she needed the money. So, the dd thought she would be able to sell it for that much so, for some reason, the farm family expects the 16 yr old to pay it. OP, could you clarify this part? ETA: I see in the updated part she says it's not paid off. I still don't think anyone other than farm family is responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristineW Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Even with the updated info, I think its still up to the parents to pay their daughter since the bike isn't paid off. They knew of a hazardous situation on their property and failed to warn an invited guest about a danger he could not see. The boy had permission to be riding the bike and was not riding recklessly, In the States, he could successfully sue for pain and suffering and any other losses incurred due to the injury. The bike should have been insured. It's not the boy's fault that it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Non of the responsibility should be shared. It belongs to the farm parents and any non-minor children involved. Letting smile child friendfamily friend to ride a dangerous uninsured vehicle on unknown (to him) terrain is just plain irresponsible. I'd have quite a few choice words if it were my child who got hurt. Farm family is 100% responsible. Should not take a dime from the minor friend. Should apologize profusely for endangering said child. He could have died. The money for the bike is not a priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebacabunch Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Legally: property owners. Morally, imo, property owners. I would NEVER allow a sixteen year old CHILD ride a motorcycle on dangerous property on an UNINSURED vehicle. The owners will be lucky to not be sued. They need to call their homeowners insurance immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denisemomof4 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 This is exactly why the 4-wheeler is OFF LIMITS to any friends visiting. The ONLY time I let dd ride it with a friend (ds's friends never did) was to haul a bale of straw out to the barn for bedding. The straw was in my car. I do not think the boy is responsible in any way. If the kids wanted to swim, they should have walked IMO. Sorry OP. The situation sucks. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex-mex Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Who is getting paid? Why do they need to raise $4000 for it? Was it not yet paid off? :iagree: I am confused as to why they need to raise funds for it. And the ditch in the insurance POV is a huge liability for a lawsuit if the boyfriend wanted to stir some trouble. He had permission to ride it from the owner's sister. I would think the sister is the one who needs to pay back family for the motorbike, if anything. She was the one who allowed the bike to be used in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabella Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 thanks everyone - appreciate opinions, and good to realize that I'm not way off the mark in my thinking! :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 This is just one of those rotten situations where carp happens and trying to parse out who to blame just makes it worse. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Where there is no negligence, there is no culpability. 20yo DD owned a vaulable object. 20yo DD chose not to insure the object. 20yo DD freely chose to lend the object to 16yo Friend. 16yo F used the borrowed object reasonably and with due care and caution. 16yo F encountered unforseen difficulty resulting in damage to the object. The object is ruined. 16yo F feels guity that the object was ruined during his use, wishes he had been even more careful. Parents assess whether it would be reasonable to expect him to be more careful than he was. Parent #1 feels that his use of the object was appropreate and the accident was not due to careless actions, because she beleives 16yo F to be of generally reliable character. Parent #2 feels that his use the destruction of the object was due to careless action, because he believes that 16yo F has poor character. Parent #2 feels that 16yo F should compensate DD20 for loss of the object due to carelessness. Parent #1 feels that 16yo F has no responsibility to compensate for an accident during expected normal use. Parent #1 feels sympathy for DD20's loss of valuable object and would like to ease that situation by offering money to offset the loss of potential revenue from the sale of the object. Conclusions: - 16yo F owes nothing, since only one of 6+ people involved in the event consider it likely that the cause of the accident was carelessness. If your DH feels strongly about pressing for compensation, he should know he is alone in that opinion and, while he is free to say and do what seems best to him -- you do not agree, support or consent to him pressing 16yo F for money related to this incident. - Everyone feels sympathy for DD20's loss of the money from the intended sale of the motorbike. It would be fair just to say, "That was tough luck on you. In families when people have tough luck, sometimes we share that. Here's some money to help with the situation that you only got in because you were generous and ditches are dangerous." This is not claiming that you as farm-owners bear actual responsibility. It's just plain kindness. - If 16yo F has strong feelings on the issue, after it has been made clear to him that "where there is no negligence there is no culpability" -- if he just wants to help DD20 with some money in her unforunate loss too, you could allow for that, without sending the message it is in any way expected, or that it is anything other than a gift offered in sympathy. - DD20 learns that if she wants to use a vehicle, she should insure it: and that "lending it to other people" is actually the same as "using it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
besroma Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Sounds like an accident. Boy had a lot of trust to go with fam on land w/o knowing condition of vehicle, host didn't warn or mark off hazard...he paid for that mistake with his injuries. Owner's mistake was having no insurance. Chalk it all up to experience and next time you have visitors, make sure they don't hit the hazards - agree host is100% responsible for accident happening. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 thanks everyone - appreciate opinions, and good to realize that I'm not way off the mark in my thinking! :glare: Sorry, Isabella -- in this case, I really wish we could have agreed with your dh, because it would have saved you a lot of money, but his rationale simply isn't reasonable (and would never hold up in court.) :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabella Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 Sorry, Isabella -- in this case, I really wish we could have agreed with your dh, because it would have saved you a lot of money, but his rationale simply isn't reasonable (and would never hold up in court.) :grouphug: How sweet of you to say so. Thankyou. I think we will have words again about it, though, because I see more clearly that he should be admitting some responsibility, and even an apology would be in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.