not under ATTs insurance coverage. You would need it under like.. homeowners or somthing I dont know. Certain credit cards may offer insurance too, but it's hardly an available option for EVERYONE.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What would you do if a kid ran by and accidentally hit your iPhone onto the ground?
- Thread starter lambo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
not under ATTs insurance coverage. You would need it under like.. homeowners or somthing I dont know. Certain credit cards may offer insurance too, but it's hardly an available option for EVERYONE.
From dear old Bill Hicks, RIP...
"Now get this, I've been travelling all over the country on British Air. No smoking on British Air. Now let me get this straight, no smoking right but they allow children. Little fairness, huh?
"Well smoking bothers me."
Well guess what?
I was on this one flight right, I'm flying, I'm sleeping on the plane, I'm ****ing "knackered". Very tired right and I feel this tapping on my head. And I look up and there's this little kid - loose! on the ****ing plane, he's just loose. It's his playground in the sky. And he has decided that his job is to repetitively tap me on the top of the head.
I look across the aisle at his mom. She's just smiling, you know.
Guy next to the mom goes, "They're so cute when they're that small."
Isn't that amazing, letting your kid run loose on a ****ing plane. And then the kid runs over to the emergency exit and he starts flipping that handle to the door. And the guy next to the mom starts to get up, and I go, "Wait a minute... we're about to learn an important lesson right here."
Kwoooshh.
Why you're right, the smaller he gets, the cuter he is.
God, I wish I had a camera right now.
With a telescopic lens.
Like to get a picture of his face when his pudgy little legs hit that farmhouse down there.
Aah, aah, kids. Ha ha.
Stewardess, since we got a breeze in here can we smoke now? "
"Now get this, I've been travelling all over the country on British Air. No smoking on British Air. Now let me get this straight, no smoking right but they allow children. Little fairness, huh?
"Well smoking bothers me."
Well guess what?
I was on this one flight right, I'm flying, I'm sleeping on the plane, I'm ****ing "knackered". Very tired right and I feel this tapping on my head. And I look up and there's this little kid - loose! on the ****ing plane, he's just loose. It's his playground in the sky. And he has decided that his job is to repetitively tap me on the top of the head.
I look across the aisle at his mom. She's just smiling, you know.
Guy next to the mom goes, "They're so cute when they're that small."
Isn't that amazing, letting your kid run loose on a ****ing plane. And then the kid runs over to the emergency exit and he starts flipping that handle to the door. And the guy next to the mom starts to get up, and I go, "Wait a minute... we're about to learn an important lesson right here."
Kwoooshh.
Why you're right, the smaller he gets, the cuter he is.
God, I wish I had a camera right now.
With a telescopic lens.
Like to get a picture of his face when his pudgy little legs hit that farmhouse down there.
Aah, aah, kids. Ha ha.
Stewardess, since we got a breeze in here can we smoke now? "
cultural differences my frand
What's frand mean?
Haha, I'm just joking anyways. I'm from the US 
To be cream crackered... (knackered - hence knackers yard meaning abattoir i'd imagine)
[Quote:
Originally Posted by chimpboy74
We can?
brilliant, I'm off to be irresponsible.....
QUOTE=Arran;6031967]
I somehow don't think you needed to be told that[/QUOTE]
Huh!
Seems that I am supposed to be a responsible adult. My Dad told me after I fired a peashooter into his ear and he gave me a clip round the lug 'ole.
Originally Posted by chimpboy74
We can?
brilliant, I'm off to be irresponsible.....
QUOTE=Arran;6031967]
I somehow don't think you needed to be told that
[/QUOTE]Huh!
Seems that I am supposed to be a responsible adult. My Dad told me after I fired a peashooter into his ear and he gave me a clip round the lug 'ole.
Ok, here's what I would think would happen with most of you according to your plan.
You: "What the? You just broke my iPhone, you little brat!"
Child: "Oh... I'm so sorry..." *begins to cry*
You: "Where are your parents?"
Child: *wipes away some tears* "Ov... Over there." *points at a women in her mid-thirties with dirty blonde hair, noticeably uncombed, wearing a pink tank top with distinct stain of ketchup on the lower right. Of course, to go with this poor outfit, she's wearing a pair of worn jeans with several holes.*
You: *picks up the broken iPhone and stomps on over to the mother*
xxxxxxxx"Excuse me, ma'am; but your kid just broke my iPhone!"
Mother: "Huh? He did what?" *she parts her hair to one side in a kind of flirtatious way*
You: "Broke my dang iPhone, sweetheart! These things don't come cheap!"
xxxxxxxx*you begin to explain the story and how much it costs*
Mother: *begins to realize you're actually pissed* Oh, wow, well I'm sincerely sorry. But I don't just have 400 dollars lying around. I honestly can't help you. I'm sure insurance will cover it, right? Next time watch out for little kids. Don't worry though, little Timmy over here will be sure to get a whipping when he gets home.
xxxxxxxxx*she grabs the child and actually begins to run out the door*
You: "What the? You just broke my iPhone, you little brat!"
Child: "Oh... I'm so sorry..." *begins to cry*
You: "Where are your parents?"
Child: *wipes away some tears* "Ov... Over there." *points at a women in her mid-thirties with dirty blonde hair, noticeably uncombed, wearing a pink tank top with distinct stain of ketchup on the lower right. Of course, to go with this poor outfit, she's wearing a pair of worn jeans with several holes.*
You: *picks up the broken iPhone and stomps on over to the mother*
xxxxxxxx"Excuse me, ma'am; but your kid just broke my iPhone!"
Mother: "Huh? He did what?" *she parts her hair to one side in a kind of flirtatious way*
You: "Broke my dang iPhone, sweetheart! These things don't come cheap!"
xxxxxxxx*you begin to explain the story and how much it costs*
Mother: *begins to realize you're actually pissed* Oh, wow, well I'm sincerely sorry. But I don't just have 400 dollars lying around. I honestly can't help you. I'm sure insurance will cover it, right? Next time watch out for little kids. Don't worry though, little Timmy over here will be sure to get a whipping when he gets home.
xxxxxxxxx*she grabs the child and actually begins to run out the door*
I shouldn't have to check around every corner, and do a couple double-takes before taking out my phone, it is the parent's responsibility to make sure that their kids are behaving and not running around like wild animals in a store, if it were a trolley (assuming we are talking about a train), a chair, or a door opened blindly then it is nobody's fault, but it is most certainly the kids' fault in this hypothetical case, as they were not watching their environment and were acting in a way that was not appropriate for the location.
And I think that anybody's word would stand up against a child in this case, and plus, I do not think that the child would lie if an adult whom they haven't met before were to come forward with this. And plus, the parent had to have known that their kids were running around like animals and probably would not have doubted the fact that their kids were running crazy and broke somebody's things, and if there were other witnesses or surveillance tapes in the store, then the kids would not have any room to lie.
And not that I am calling you wrong with what I am about to say, but are you positive that a child cannot be held legally responsible for vandalism or destruction of another person's property? That just sounds like you are making it up to support your claim, can anybody else with legal expertise support this claim? Because I have heard of kids in their teens being arrested for vandalism of property and getting charged with that claim (graffiti, broken doors, ect.). I do not think that a child could legally get away with the act if there were actual evidence of their actions causing the destruction (surveillance video, ect.). Can anybody else support the claim that the child could get away with the act legally just for being a child?
around here, kids are responsible in a way that if what they did was ILLEGAL (not running into someone) then they would have to face the legal consequences. They CAN face juvi time or some other sentence, HOWEVER, in a case where personal property was damaged by their neglegence, it is really the PARENTS who were neglegent enough to let it happen, so they are held responsible for the damage.
Think about a parent hosting an underage drinking party. The cops come, the kids usually DONT get into trouble because it was the PARENTS neglegence for letting the teens drink underage.. if the teens were out in a car under no parent supervision, then it is their responsibility..
the bottom line is, if the parents are ALLOWING the behavior, it becomes the responsibilty of the PARENT to take on the blame
Think about a parent hosting an underage drinking party. The cops come, the kids usually DONT get into trouble because it was the PARENTS neglegence for letting the teens drink underage.. if the teens were out in a car under no parent supervision, then it is their responsibility..
the bottom line is, if the parents are ALLOWING the behavior, it becomes the responsibilty of the PARENT to take on the blame
Thank you for that. So somebody would be held responsible, I took that other user's post to mean that since the kid was not responsible for the act, you are not going to be getting any reimbursement for the damages caused by the kid.
nope. If the child was ALONE and no parents around ANYWHERE, then it COULD be the case that no one was responsible for the child, and you would not get reimbursement, but then there would be an entirely new issue with why the kid was unsupervised and you could probably STILL get damages for what the kid did.. that rule USUALLY applies to teenagers because young kids are not to be unsupervised, ever, which ALWAYS makes the parent responsible.. the laws are not cut and dry, and NO MATTER WHAT, if the person is under 18, there is ALWAYS the chance that the parents will be held responsible because they were not supervising.
Another for instance.
A teen decides to act stupid and roll a bowling ball down a HUGE hill on a road and that bowling ball goes into someone's house through the garage door and breaks a LOT of stuff. Since the child is under 18 (whether or not the teen has a job) the PARENTS are resposible for paying for the damages, NOT the teen. Legally, you can not prosecute a teen for doing something STUPID. It is then the PARENTS responsibilty (as good parents) to make sure the teen pays THEM back.
Another for instance.
A teen decides to act stupid and roll a bowling ball down a HUGE hill on a road and that bowling ball goes into someone's house through the garage door and breaks a LOT of stuff. Since the child is under 18 (whether or not the teen has a job) the PARENTS are resposible for paying for the damages, NOT the teen. Legally, you can not prosecute a teen for doing something STUPID. It is then the PARENTS responsibilty (as good parents) to make sure the teen pays THEM back.
Like, you're just walking around in some store, checkin' out da furniture, havin' a grand ol' time.
And BAM! All of a sudden two kids are running around playing tag, don't see you, run straight into you, knock the iPhone out of your hands, and the iPhone falls straight onto the ground and gets shattered?
Then the kids are just staring at you completely scared.
What would you do?
(Completely fake story, never happened to me but could happen.)
Something like this kinda happened to me a while back. I was at the exit of an amusement park standing way out of the way all by myself. This family comes out out like 200 feet away from me and a 10 year old kid starts walking towards me. He just kept coming slowly, like the forklift scene in Austin Powers. I kept wondering when he is going to stop, and he eventually walked right into me. I said something like "was that really necessary" and the kid's mother starts yelling at me, like it wasn't the kid's fault. Crazy.
I don't understand how someone can hate kids when they were themselves one at one point.
While I agree on the responsibility issue I'm sure you were perfect and never did anything stupid. I bet you finished your vegetables, did your homework on time and never did anything fun
Actually, i always finished my veggies. AS a kid, if i was acting up in a restuarant, my parents would get my a bowl of steamed veggies to quiet me.. but thats nother story
I KNOW all kids act up, its part of being a kid, but there IS a time and a place and i feel like parents, lately, have been taking the LAZIEST approach to parenting. I'd say about 75% of the parents i see LET their kids do this stuff. its one things for kids to start up acting wild, but to act like its not happening is the MOST frustrating thing and its ALL the parents fault.
with that being said, I dont hate kids because they "act up" in public places, i just plain, flat out, DO NOT LIKE CHILDREN. even the best behaved children are pains int he butts, and i wouldnt even want to deal with my own, let alone a stranger's kids who are running wild
I dont like them in my house, i dont like talking to them, and i plain dont really like them.. I can TOLLERATE them, but that does not mean i LIKE them. I am nice to them and try not to be rude or mean, but i still dont LIKE them..
I KNOW all kids act up, its part of being a kid, but there IS a time and a place and i feel like parents, lately, have been taking the LAZIEST approach to parenting. I'd say about 75% of the parents i see LET their kids do this stuff. its one things for kids to start up acting wild, but to act like its not happening is the MOST frustrating thing and its ALL the parents fault.
with that being said, I dont hate kids because they "act up" in public places, i just plain, flat out, DO NOT LIKE CHILDREN. even the best behaved children are pains int he butts, and i wouldnt even want to deal with my own, let alone a stranger's kids who are running wild
I dont like them in my house, i dont like talking to them, and i plain dont really like them.. I can TOLLERATE them, but that does not mean i LIKE them. I am nice to them and try not to be rude or mean, but i still dont LIKE them..
This thread seems to be splitting into the people who are thinking the kids are terrible misbehaved kids with terrible parents and are acting WAY WAY out of line and end up bumping you, and the people who think the kids are playing around a little, but are good kids with pretty good parents, the kid just hit you by accident.
I was originally thinking of just the latter camp, and if one of those kids hits me, then I really see it as my problem that I dropped my phone - that is, it was an accident and I should have been holding my phone more carefully or watching out a little better. If one of the first type of kids were to come out of literally no where and plow me over and I drop the phone, then I would be pretty pissed. But, sadly, this type of child is probably acting this way due to bad parenting, and these bad parents are probably not the type of people who are going to gladly offer up $500 or whatever to replace your phone. They'll probably scream at you or the child and tell you to basically piss off.
EDIT: Just saw your other post about the bowling ball. I think in that case it is much easier to prove negligence. Especially if it's a young child. You were negligent in the fact that you should have either been watching the child so he doesn't do that, OR, had someone watching him for you (babysitter). If the child is older, then they would probably be punished by the law (juvi), but a "good" parent who made the mistake of being negligent that one time would try to settle it without juvi by talking to the victim and working out a payment plan for the kid, or paying for it themselves. I think this differs from the case in the store as the parent was probably relatively close to the child and the child was clearly WITH the parents, as opposed to out in the street, without the parents, doing whatever they wanted.
I was originally thinking of just the latter camp, and if one of those kids hits me, then I really see it as my problem that I dropped my phone - that is, it was an accident and I should have been holding my phone more carefully or watching out a little better. If one of the first type of kids were to come out of literally no where and plow me over and I drop the phone, then I would be pretty pissed. But, sadly, this type of child is probably acting this way due to bad parenting, and these bad parents are probably not the type of people who are going to gladly offer up $500 or whatever to replace your phone. They'll probably scream at you or the child and tell you to basically piss off.
I'm thinking it might be tough to prove negligence. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that you better have some witnesses or security camera footage if you really want to press the issue, because it would be your word against the other parent's as to what exactly happened. Then there's the issue of whether or not it can even be classified as negligence. ie, If the child was just a few feet from the parent and ran toward the parent because they were called, and they bumped you on the way, is that a negligent parent? It seems like it could get a little hairy.
EDIT: Just saw your other post about the bowling ball. I think in that case it is much easier to prove negligence. Especially if it's a young child. You were negligent in the fact that you should have either been watching the child so he doesn't do that, OR, had someone watching him for you (babysitter). If the child is older, then they would probably be punished by the law (juvi), but a "good" parent who made the mistake of being negligent that one time would try to settle it without juvi by talking to the victim and working out a payment plan for the kid, or paying for it themselves. I think this differs from the case in the store as the parent was probably relatively close to the child and the child was clearly WITH the parents, as opposed to out in the street, without the parents, doing whatever they wanted.