My Toddler Broke LED Screen While at Harvey Norman, Who Says They Don't Have Accidental Cover?

drdarsh on 02/01/2019 - 19:15
Last edited 02/01/2019 - 22:03 by 2 other users

My son and wife were at Harvey Norman, looking out for refrigerator when my toddler threw his water bottle on a TV which smashed the screen.

Unfortunately, I was at home finishing my overdue masters project. Little fellow has been taught lesson and we will continue to be more vigilant. Officials at store have mentioned they do not have accidental cover, we have never faced this issue before and presume that stores like Harvey Norman will have accidental cover to cover similar to other emergencies? Have been asked to pay $1000.00.

Model smashed Samsung UA65NU8000

I have emailed ACCC and Choice online. Response awaited

What shall I do, need help?

  1. Cough up $1000
  2. Go on the legal policy/ACCC path
  3. Mod: Removed (Illegal/Inappropriate)
Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

Comments

            • ozhunter on 02/01/2019 - 22:05
              +6

              @oscargamer:

              Again, not relevant to my replies thus far.

              My questions have only been about the parental legal liability.

              Huh?

              I'm just asking why you paid when it happened to you?

              Why didn't you do what your suggesting the OP to do?

          • Jugganautx on 03/01/2019 - 11:24
            +3

            @ozhunter: If you're responisble enough spread your gene seed youre responsible for everything it does until its of legal age.

        • Parentheses on 07/01/2019 - 08:53
          +1

          A toddler cannot be held criminally liable

          It's not criminal liability, it's civil. And the guardian of someone who is not capable of being held responsible assumes that responsibility. The store could absolutely sue the OP for this.

          The relevant legislation is common law from before Australia was a country (we inherited it from Britain). You break someone else's stuff, you're liable to pay for it.

          • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:55
            +1

            @Parentheses: A toddler has no legal liability at all, criminal or civil. I'm astounded this comes as a surprise.

            • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 11:21

              @trapper: A toddler doesn't, the adult who's supposed to be supervising that toddler can.

            • Parentheses on 08/01/2019 - 11:30

              @trapper: They have the same civil liability as a pet, which means it flows on to the person 'in charge' who is then responsible. The only time you ever have no responsible party is when it is an 'Act of God', i.e. weather. Criminal liability does not pass on, but civil does.

      • Blitzfx on 02/01/2019 - 22:08
        +6

        Sounds like they're asking cost price which is pretty good yeah

        • FTTNope on 06/01/2019 - 10:16

          I reckon $1k would be well under cost price for a big name TV, the profit margins weren't anywhere near that generous when I was working retail. But I don't work at HN now so I could be totally wrong.

      • Gandalf the Thrifty on 04/01/2019 - 09:57
        +2

        Broken $2k TV and they want $1k when broken. They unlikely to get it fixed, so wonder if they just covering the cost price?

      • wozz on 05/01/2019 - 08:08

        Completely agree. Really sucks and we know kids don't always do what they're told or can disappear in a heartbeat, but in the end parents are responsible

      • foxinsox8 on 07/01/2019 - 18:46

        You are right in principle. But probably wrong regarding the small claims action.

        It's never cheap for a company to brief their lawyer then have them write a statement of claim and attend court. That's why sending a company a notice of attendance for a small claims tribunal - when the shoe is on the other foot - often sees them give up straight away and negotiate.

    • whooah1979 on 02/01/2019 - 20:00

      The company is making a claim under civil law.
      https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-sue-tort

      It's unlikely that the company will file an application against the infant. They've a better chance if they go for the person responsible for the infant.

      • oscargamer on 02/01/2019 - 20:15
        +1

        Tort does not apply to toddlers, hence my question.

        I am not arguing the morals of the question, I am asking if the parent is legally responsible for a toddler.

        Please be very clear, a toddler is not over 3 years old.

        • oscargamer on 02/01/2019 - 20:43
          -3

          I love all the negs, but I am still waiting for someone to link me the legislation re: toddler damage and parental liability.

          Please neg this also.

          Again…………I AM NOT ARGUING THE MORALS OF THIS, just asking for legal clarification…..Not sure why that's such a hard concept for the neggers to grasp.

            • whooah1979 on 02/01/2019 - 21:06
              +1

              @holdenmg: I've been spending the last 30min on Austlii looking over case law.

              Thanks for making it easier.

              • oscargamer on 02/01/2019 - 21:18
                -8

                @whooah1979: Thanks holdenmg

                So……to all the neggers, you have learnt something.

                A parent is pretty much not legally responsible for the damage that their toddler does. As the child ages, the responsibility increases, because the child begins to foresee action and consequence.

                Up to you OP. Pay up, or tell them to shove it. Your choice. PS…you only have to pay the price that the store paid for the TV, not it's retail price.

                • Ughhh on 02/01/2019 - 22:56

                  @oscargamer: What if a toddler threw the bottle at your car and caused a dent/scratch? Too bad so sad, no ones fault, just bad luck, you'll have to sort it out yourself?

                • pegaxs on 03/01/2019 - 00:11
                  +5

                  @oscargamer:

                  or when it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over a child who has committed a tort.

                  This may be the reason you are copping negs. This quote was taken from Holdenmg’s link.

                  It is obvious that the parent was not exercising proper control or supervision if the child was allowed to hurl a bottle at a tv. This makes the person who was responsible for the child at the time responsible for any action the child does while under their control and supervision.

                  An example of when the parents would not be responsible would be if that child was in the care of a school or child minder. The parents are not in control or supervising the child, so it is unreasonable to expect them to pay for damages and damages may be sought from whom ever it was that was in control of the child.

                  It may also not be the parents fault if the child had escaped their control and supervision. If it is a lost child or run away child where the parents have no ability to know where their child is, this may be grounds to obsolve holding the parents responsible.

                  So, I would say in the case of OP, there was significant lack of control and/or supervision on their behalf, so the fault with the toddler smashing the TV falls to the person who would have been responsible for control and supervision.

                  Oh, and complaining about getting negs, I find, just collects you more negs. (And it wasn’t me, sorry. I’m all out of negs from the anti-vaxxer thread earlier today…)

                  • Zachary on 03/01/2019 - 16:10

                    @pegaxs: But the table would turn if Harvey Norman decided to proactively have a defense against such an incident such as a wire fence around the TV and the bottle would just bounce back and hitting the toddler and killing him from the blow….?

                  • sparkanum on 06/01/2019 - 08:49
                    +1

                    @pegaxs:

                    It is obvious that the parent was not exercising proper control or supervision if the child was allowed to hurl a bottle at a tv.

                    A toddler holding any object may throw it at any point in time and at any thing (expensive or not) for seemingly no reason and with no warning. And even if you're standing there watching them you may not have the reaction time to stop them.

                    Sure, some kids are allowed to run riot, but the OP mentioned this has never happened before. I don't think you can presume negligence on the parents part when it comes to toddlers.

                    • pegaxs on 06/01/2019 - 09:23

                      @sparkanum:

                      A toddler holding any object may throw it at any point in time

                      Then exercise proper control and don’t give a child an object that could become a missile, if thrown. Or, while they have control of this object, you give them adequate supervision. Especially if you are around fragile things like large screen TVs.

                      And I am 100% sure that if a parent was standing there, who had proper control of their child, as soon as that child went to throw that object, it would be shut down before it even started.

                      If it wasn’t a lack of proper control then it is more likely inadequate supervision. Take your pick.

                      OP mentioned this has never happened before.

                      Then, unfortunately it is an expensive first lesson, and I can be certain that the supervision and control of their toddler has changed in accordance to this outcome.

                      My daughter has never thrown anything like this, even when she was a toddler, but that never stopped me from treating her like she would have. And as you said, there are plenty of kids who run riot, so there are enough examples of bad kids to know what you should potentially be on the lookout for.

                      • sparkanum on 06/01/2019 - 16:29
                        +1

                        @pegaxs: My son hasn't thrown anything or done stuff like this (fingers crossed), and like you I'm still super careful with him in situations like this. But I don't think it's reasonable for everyone to be as ridiculously anxious as I am with their children.

                        I guess I'm saying that proper control and inadequate supervision aren't the only two options here. There's a third which is "reasonable attempts at control / supervision ending in unfortunate disaster regardless".

                        That said, I'd probably have paid the $1k and deducted it from his share of the will.

                  • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 19:01
                    -2

                    @pegaxs: It's not reasonable either to expect parents to cart their children around in straitjackets.

                    There is no legal liability for toddlers. Harvey Norman knows this and allows toddlers into their stores anyway.

                    • pegaxs on 07/01/2019 - 20:04

                      @trapper: Ok, thanks for your input. Ya’ wrong, but thanks for your input. :)

                      The only part you did get right was that there is no legal liability for the toddler themselves, but there certainly is for their parents. But you know, ignore that part of the thread…

                      Straight jacket… over exaggerating much? I guess what ever helps colour your story though.

                    • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 11:22

                      @trapper: It doesn't take a straitjacket for parents to stop their kids from breaking things in shops. What kind of nonsense is this?

                • Topdog on 03/01/2019 - 11:20

                  @oscargamer: Are you serious? Or trolling?

                • foxinsox8 on 07/01/2019 - 18:49
                  +1

                  @oscargamer: How did you come to that conclusion… the linked article clearly states there is a parental liability "when it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over a child who has committed a tort."
                  Pretty much the opposite of what you stated.

                • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 14:48

                  @oscargamer: @Oscar Read the whole paragraph - "Liability will usually only arise if the child who commits the wrong was acting as the parent’s agent or with their authority, or when it is found that a parent has not exercised proper control or supervision over a child who has committed a tort"

                  See that bit about "not exercised proper control or supervision over a child".

                  That's what everyone has been telling you.

                  The child was with its parent in a retail stop. Normal standards would say the parent should exercise sufficient control to stop the child throwing a solid item at breakable stock item.

                  Parent is liable.

          • Jugganautx on 03/01/2019 - 11:25
            +2

            @oscargamer: simple fact is you're just being a pisstaker… how about you look it up yourself.

  • Davo1111 on 02/01/2019 - 19:48
    +20

    The latter is fraud.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 19:56
    +15

    You break, you buy. Your wife is responsible.

    • Ti-au on 03/01/2019 - 11:36
      +2

      So says the sign of every $2 store.

    • Gandalf the Thrifty on 04/01/2019 - 09:50
      +9

      Yep blame the wife, that will end well…

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 11:30
        -5

        Was she even shopping for a TV or just child minding and breaking expensive things. The OP would probably have been there if she was seriously shopping, so she was just skylarking with children.

        • timps on 06/01/2019 - 14:14
          +1

          Wow, So his wife couldn't possibly shop for something without him?

          That's a pretty poor way to think about half the population…

          • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 15:46
            -1

            @timps: What makes you certain the distinction is sex rather than by OzBargain membership? Are you jumping the gun with your SJW agency hair trigger and mock surprise?

  • Yummy on 02/01/2019 - 20:13
    +39

    Pay $1000 then ask them to give you that broken TV. Sell it as spare parts.

    • horice on 02/01/2019 - 20:25
      +75

      Then giftwrap it and give it to the kid on their 18th birthday

    • serpserpserp on 02/01/2019 - 20:52
      +6

      I'd do this. Perhaps you can get it fixed for less than the RRP and enjoy a new TV!

      • jace88 on 03/01/2019 - 11:37
        +2

        From my experience when my TV broke in shipping, the (retail) cost of repairing/replacing significant components of the TV are significantly more expensive than you expect. The repair bill including labour for the power supply and cable on my TV came out to $800 on a TV which was only worth about $1000.

        • beyondtool on 06/01/2019 - 01:11

          Yep Samsung told me the panel that failed in my 4 year old $1500 Tv would cost $2000 to repair

    • wordplay on 02/01/2019 - 21:04
      +7

      they may end up saying that the $1000 for repair of the tv, not sale price and ask for more if you want to take it home.

    • Seedy seed on 03/01/2019 - 10:19
      -6

      (profanity) that. Take it home, claim accidental breakage.

      • sparkanum on 06/01/2019 - 08:51
        +1

        A + for the taking it home, double neg for suggesting insurance fraud. A neg it is!

        • Seedy seed on 06/01/2019 - 09:07
          -1

          The insurance company would defraud you given the chance lol

    • cashless on 03/01/2019 - 12:57
      +14

      Don't forget to take it overseas with you and claim the TRS

    • Baghern on 03/01/2019 - 15:43
      +2

      Im pretty sure the TV is more than 1000

  • pantsparty on 02/01/2019 - 20:34
    +5

    Pay the money - you are responsible for any damage your child causes.

  • Godric on 02/01/2019 - 20:47
    +22

    Role of a parent is being responsible for their children, be responsible and pay the cost.

    Also in that email to ACCC, do you enquire about proceeding with your 3rd option or were you more comfortable asking as an anonymous user on a public forum?

  • wordplay on 02/01/2019 - 20:59
    +1

    looks like they want bout $2000 for this model - may be able to get something for the destroyed unit so could end up paying a little less than the $1000 they want.

  • MessyG on 02/01/2019 - 20:59
    +2

    Ah the old kid goes feral while wife gets them out of the house so husband can finish his overdue masters situation. Got that t-shirt. Unfortunately you'll have to pay. Accidents happen occasionally and as responsible adults we need to own them. Obviously check your rights but you'll likely have to pay the $1000. Try to negotiate it down or do it on a payment plan to soften the blow.

    • AdosHouse on 02/01/2019 - 21:12
      +23

      I doubt HN will negotiate. They sell that TV currently for $2k, but are only asking for $1k from OP. If it was me, I'd be running to the ATM withdrawing $1k and throwing it at them before they ask for more.

      • cameldownunder on 03/01/2019 - 09:45
        +2

        O.P. Will have to pay $1000 and NOT KEEP the TV

        • itsdougie on 07/01/2019 - 20:06

          so Harvey will request from Samsung a remittance for DOA?

    • cameldownunder on 03/01/2019 - 09:44
      -1

      Why in the world isn't there a third party personal insurance like in some other countries. This would cover the damage.
      Answer to myself: Because in this country people would invite friends over to smash their TV just to get the insurance to pay and buy a new one.

      • misu p on 03/01/2019 - 21:49
        +2

        I bet you have not traveled that much…. just a guess.

      • Noblejoker on 04/01/2019 - 14:30
        +1

        Read the other replies - there is such a cover and many have it already under Home Contents insurance

  • Donaldhump on 02/01/2019 - 21:27
    +9

    Enrol your kid in cricket

    • djones145 on 02/01/2019 - 22:52
      +5

      prolly can play for australia in the 4th test! better than the ones we have playing now

      • Donaldhump on 02/01/2019 - 23:06

        Selected by dean jones himself

    • Aap Ke Papa on 04/01/2019 - 20:57

      The kid's gotta learn to use sandpaper first

  • drdarsh on 02/01/2019 - 21:28
    +35

    Thanks everyone for all comments. 3rd option was half suggested by HN lady (half suggested in that, she said "you may want to add this to your current home and content insurance and see if you can claim it")

    Will be paying them tomorrow. On a positive note, this could have happened after buying this from HN paying full amount.

    Many thanks once again. Happy 2019
    D

    • Blurem on 02/01/2019 - 21:38

      Exactly, or it could've been a top of the line TV and be asking for thousands more.

      • coxjon on 03/01/2019 - 08:30
        +4

        I read this as “the first tv in a line of tvs” and they all came crashing down in a domino effect! 0_o

    • xuqi on 02/01/2019 - 21:40
      +16

      Great so the HN imbecile is now advising customers on committing insurance fraud! Go Gerry…

      You option 3 shouldn't be considered either.

      • gyrex on 03/01/2019 - 09:47
        +1

        Some home insurance policies cover damages caused to items outside the home.

        • Melb69 on 03/01/2019 - 10:05
          +1

          Yeah if your owned it in the first place. Not after the fact. If the insurance company investigates this case which they will. The OP could be up for more pain with further legal issues for fraud.

          • Seedy seed on 03/01/2019 - 10:22

            @Melb69: Toddler threw bottle at tv. They check tv. Case closed???

      • imurgod on 08/01/2019 - 18:58
        +1

        I love how Ozbargainers are fine with fraud but not with people's rights under law

    • spaceflight on 03/01/2019 - 11:35

      On a positive note, this could have happened after buying this from HN paying full amount.

      Is that a positive?

      If it happened after buying it and it was covered by your home or credit card insurance then you wouldn't be out of pocket.

      If your insurance doesn't cover it then yes it's lucky it happened in the store and not at home.

      • Agret on 11/01/2019 - 01:19

        If it happened after buying it and it was covered by your home or credit card insurance then you wouldn't be out of pocket.

        Well, you still have to pay the excess

    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 12:54
      +3

      We are sorry about your situation, but the outcome is fair.

      And yes it happens at homes regularly and unfortunately parents regularly try to lie about it happening in transport etc. A quick check of total run time usually clarifies what actually happened (i wonder if you can check run time when the screen is totally shattered?).

      Better off owning it and claiming CC and H&C.

    • OhNoUShiz on 04/01/2019 - 09:04
      +2

      This sounds like a 'fraud'. Maybe you can claim content insurance for the bottle if it is damaged.

    • squaredonut on 04/01/2019 - 19:43

      Good on you, and a very expensive lesson. Now I will keep my little one stuck to me when near TVs.

      On another note, did you try to ask for a slightly cheaper fine/penalty from them?

  • elgrande on 02/01/2019 - 21:38
    +16

    Is the drink bottle ok?

  • dcep on 02/01/2019 - 21:39
    +1

    Yeah, negligence aint accidents

    toddlers are parents responsibility

    • Mordaunt on 03/01/2019 - 15:10
      +7

      What if the kid was an accident XD.

  • chumlee on 02/01/2019 - 22:13
    -2

    You don't have to pay anything but up to you if you want to

    • timps on 06/01/2019 - 14:17

      This is absurd.
      They went somewhere, with a child they are legally accountable for and destroyed a television.

      In what way do you think the destruction of someone else's property holds no liability at all?

      • chumlee on 06/01/2019 - 14:22
        +2

        Under common law of Australia

  • subywagon on 02/01/2019 - 22:15
    -1

    They'd have insurance for sure. They are probably trying to double dip, get 1k from you then claim on insurance too.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 23:32

      Well unless the OP can prove this, they're directly liable aren't they?

    • Cusack on 03/01/2019 - 11:49
      +1

      I agree with them having insurance. But I doubt they'd double dip because they'd have to pay the excess as well as the possibly of increasing their risk rating and premiums. Not worth it for just $1K.

  • chumlee on 02/01/2019 - 22:20
    +2

    How long til we see a post "I bought a Samsung UA65NU8000 TV from Harvey Norman and it was delivered with a smashed screen and HN refusing to replace it"?

  • djones145 on 02/01/2019 - 22:54
    1. bikes
    2. ACA or today tonight
    3. call scomo and demand a royal commission on Harvey norman business practices, charging a 2 year old for breaking a tv
    • hypie on 03/01/2019 - 10:18
      +1
      1. bikes

      I don't think bicycles of any nature are a form of currency in Australia.

    • Neptunesblood on 03/01/2019 - 12:58
      -6

      Do you actually think saying bikies is funny. It’s not and really just shows your intelligence. Which I’m afraid is wanting.

  • thatonethere on 02/01/2019 - 22:55
    +5

    Good whirlpool writeup on similar scenario

    https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1631017

    Tldr victory to customer in the end

    • AdosHouse on 02/01/2019 - 23:32
      +8

      Interesting read, but not comparable to the OPs situation.

      In the Whirlpool thread, the customer broke a item and offered to pay the cost that the store bought the item for. Powertripping supervisor wanted customer to pay full retail price for the item. In the end the Head Office charged him nothing because the distributor has a breakage clause in their contract with the retailer.

      In this situation, OPs kid broke a TV, HN asked them to pay HALF of their current sale price. Which sounds less than their purchase price.

      • mrvaluepack on 05/01/2019 - 06:45
        +2

        OP should ask HN head office if distributor has a breakage clause in their contract with the retailer as well then.

  • pingualien on 02/01/2019 - 23:05
    +20

    Sell the kid

  • cloudy on 02/01/2019 - 23:07
    +5

    Doesn't common sense just say you break it you pay it?

    • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 23:31
      +9

      Common sense ain't so common huh.

      • senor cogswallop on 03/01/2019 - 10:42
        -1

        If we all had common cents we could help this poor chap out.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join