Who should pay?

United States
May 6, 2007 9:34am CST
A couple of children were horsing around when one of the chidlrens glasses got broke. The parent of the child whose glasses got broken told the other parent that she thought they should split the cost of replacing the glasses. The other parent said that she wasn't going to help pay for new glasses because it was an accident and her son didn't mean to. Its both of these childrens fault that the glasses got broke. Neither of them would quit the horse playing. How do you think that this should be handled?
3 people like this
6 responses
@Woodpigeon (3710)
• Ireland
6 May 07
Yay, you have finally started a new discussion. I owe you loads of replies but there wasn't a new one. Get busy ;-) Personally, I think they were both at fault, too. It would have been only right for the friend's parent to OFFER to pay. That would have been the right thing to do, and then the person who was going to have to go to the expense and hassle of actually getting the glasses replaced cuold decide whether to accept the offer or not. I'd be extremely ticked off if I had asked and been told no, tough.
1 person likes this
• United States
6 May 07
Thanks for your response. Evert time I go to start a new discussion I find that someone else has alrady started a discussion of the same subject.
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
10 May 07
Well. Both of my children have worn glasses. They have now switched to contact lenses. If this would have happened to one of my kids. I wouldn't expect the other child's parent to help pay. The child who wears the glasses should know that if they are going to play like that, he/she should take them off and put them away. Of course kids will be kids and they do forget. After a few broken glasses I learned to buy an insurance policy for the glasses or buy from a place that allows for a certain number of replacements. If my child was partly to blame for another child breaking his or her glasses, I might offer to pay, I guess it would just depend on the situation.
1 person likes this
@KissThis (3006)
• United States
6 May 07
I would say since they were both horsing around that they each should pay part of the cost of replacing the glasses. It took both of them to break the glasses then both should pay. At any time before the glasses got broke either of thme could have stopped what they were doing. Sometimes you have to think before you do something you might later regret. Hindsight is twenty twenty.
1 person likes this
@PsychoDude (2018)
• Netherlands
6 May 07
It's that kids glasses and he horsing around just as well so it's up to his family to reimburse the glasses, not the other kid's.
1 person likes this
@GardenGerty (116474)
• United States
19 May 07
I cannot resist putting in my two cents worth, even though I see how this is resolved, by reading the rest of the discussion. I think that both of the children should be given distasteful extra chores to earn the extra money for the damages, then they will both learn a lesson. Glad there was insurance, though.
@natalie1981 (2000)
• Singapore
19 May 07
I do think that both should pay. It doesn't matter if it's an accident, if the accident is attributable to both children then they should split the cost. I can't understand why this woman would refuse, I mean, I think it's common courtesy, even if it is an accident. You should offer to pay and it's up to the person to let you off the hook or accept your offer.