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

  • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:32
    +3

    Obviously a toddler is not personally liable for anything, and this may come as a surprise but parents aren't generally liable for damage caused by their children.

    Store would need to prove the accident was foreseeable, parents negligent, other legal mumbo jumbo, and even then court could apportion blame. Harvey normal may be negligent for not insuring this risk …

    Morally however you could probably offer to pay at least the cost price (or cost of repair) of the TV.

    • littleDealFish on 10/01/2019 - 13:08

      "parents aren't generally liable for damage caused by their children."

      Got any solid information to back that up?

  • Cobalt_ on 07/01/2019 - 20:37
    +2

    GST Gerry can use some of that hard spent lobbying dollars to cover the cost. Otherwise if it was any other business I'd say pay up

  • Drewbo on 07/01/2019 - 22:15

    Pay them……..with Amazon gift cards.

  • vidiot on 08/01/2019 - 07:36
    +1

    I doubt I would pay and I wouldn’t expect others to pay. This is what insurance is for and the store not having a mechanism for that is Gerry’s problem.

    • JimmyF on 08/01/2019 - 08:16
      +2

      These are all franchisee stores, and just like your home insurance, you normally wouldn't bother claiming $1000 when you have a excess of $800. The store is the same.

      At the end of the day, the OP kid caused damage, they should make it right. If the OP kid did this in your home, would you still offer the same advice? Would you suck up paying for a new TV under your home insurance include paying the excess (assuming its covered under your policy)?

      • vidiot on 08/01/2019 - 08:23

        Yep. It’s my tv. I don’t penalise people I invite into my home for damage to expensive crap unless they do something maliciously or stupidly reckless. Having a toddler is sometimes stupid but it is not reckless. And I choose the excess on my policy.

        • mauxmee on 08/01/2019 - 08:30
          +6

          I went to house warming party some time ago, a friend's kid did the same thing, throw a remote to the TV and smashed it…the host bought it for a week. the friend bought a new one next day.
          I think here the issue is: are parents responsible for their kids action and consequence? the answer is so obvious.

          • JimmyF on 08/01/2019 - 09:20
            +2

            @mauxmee:

            I think here the issue is: are parents responsible for their kids action and consequence? the answer is so obvious.

            Agreed.

        • JimmyF on 08/01/2019 - 09:22
          +2

          I don’t penalise people I invite into my home for damage to expensive crap unless they do something maliciously or stupidly reckless.

          So is throwing a drink bottle at your TV and breaking it, something you would call malicious or stupid?

          You're one nice person to suck up paying for your own broken TV if your 'friends' kids breaks it.

          • vidiot on 08/01/2019 - 09:48

            @JimmyF: It’s insured and they only last a couple of years anyway. Not a big deal.

  • Danstar on 08/01/2019 - 08:21

    Looks like drdarsh has made a dr dash

  • spriggy on 08/01/2019 - 09:43
    +1

    $1000 is nothing compared to what you'll spend on your kid for the years to come. OP if you still haven't made up a decision on what to do, you may want to get your parents opinion (That's if you listen to them).

    It's common sense to compensate when [someone] damage [someone]'s property.

    Can't believe this thread is still going…

    • Agret on 11/01/2019 - 01:14

      You break it, you buy it.

      I was told by my accounting teacher in highschool that this is bullshit and not legally binding. The store will have insurance that will cover it, if they ask you to front up money for it they are double dipping and he said you should just tell them to get stuffed.

      • netjock on 13/01/2019 - 14:47
        +2

        If your teacher was an accountant and teaching instead then he isn't a really good accountant. Most teachers unless they are quoting from a text book are usually wrong. Don't let an accounting teacher teach you about insurance or law for that matter.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 12:18
    -1

    Another one for my list of reasons to not have children. Just pay up.

  • trex on 08/01/2019 - 13:03
    +3

    This is an interesting topic. IMHO there are 2 aspects to this; moral obligation and legal obligation.

    Morally as responsible parents, if our child breaks something whether in a store or someone's private residence, we should pay for it. However, if the item broke not mainly due to the child's actions ie item was hazardly or carelessly placed, then there is no real moral obligation to pay.

    In terms of legal obligation, as correctly pointed out by other posters, "you break it, you buy it" is not covered under Consumer Law as it is part of Tort Law, specifically under Negligence. In order to be legally obligated to pay for the damage, one needs to be negligent when the damage occurred. In this instance it is negligence on the part of the parent and not the child due to the child's age. Whether one is negligent, there are 4 elements to consider:

    duty: the defendant has a duty to others, including the plaintiff, to exercise reasonable care,
    breach: the defendant breaches that duty through an act or culpable omission,
    damages: as a result of that act or omission, the plaintiff suffers an injury, and
    causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission.

    (source : Wikipedia)

    Legal obligation is probably best left to a judge to determine in court.

    So while one may not be legally obligated to pay, one can still take the high road and morally agree to pay.

  • DarthAntz on 08/01/2019 - 14:59
    +2

    I hope you share the outcome of this.

    most people on ozbargain dont return to HN after seeing their prices or dealing with customer service. Your story is a lot more of a personal experience.

    if you have to pay up, you at least should take the broken item. scrap it and sell the remote, tv stand, and even take the board out of the back of it.

    if they've already discarded it, then i wouldnt be paying.

    • S2 on 08/01/2019 - 16:24
      +1

      He paid, although answers to your follow up questions would be interesting.

      • DarthAntz on 08/01/2019 - 17:08
        +1

        thanks for the link and response, 7 pages is a lot to go through. these posts need the opportunity for the OP to add a result in the top. or its a case of some do, some dont.

  • netsurfer on 08/01/2019 - 16:10

    Tell your son that he gets no birthday present and no Christmas present for the next few years.

  • neo8848 on 08/01/2019 - 16:38
    +1

    All franchise retail store are obliged to have accidental insurance (I worked in Vodafone independent dealer where stealing happens usually and insurance covers the damage). Recently I had masters research project to investigate business model of Harvey Norman , they are franchise model. They should have something covered, but the catch is the insurance is activated only if you refuse to pay, you can drop $1000 but it is not worth it. If I were manager/owner I would not go into insurance hassle as long as the customer is willing to pay.

    • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 18:07
      +2

      Certainly, but from comments here a lot of people seem not to know how it works, even if it really should be fairly obvious. Insurance helps the policy-holder - the person who pays the premiums.

      E.g.: If you crash into someone, the fact they might have insurance doesn't help you at all.

      Also, it's up to their discretion if they want to make a claim with insurance. E.g.: If someone crashes into you but only leaves minor scratches, you're not obligated to claim with your insurance just because the other person doesn't want to pay.

      • jhmtaylor on 09/01/2019 - 10:49
        -1

        Wrong advice.

        "INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 20
        Persons benefited need not be named
        An insurer under a contract of insurance is not relieved of liability under the contract by reason only that the names of the persons who may benefit under the contract are not specified in the policy document."

        • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 10:50
          +1

          Do you English?

          by reason only that

          I.e. - the policy holder can be specified as "landlord", or "tenant", and need not be actually named. They still need to be the policy holder, or otherwise actually covered by the insurance. HN's insurance covers HN, not OP.

          Christ, how are people this thick?

          • jhmtaylor on 09/01/2019 - 19:24

            @HighAndDry: No where does it say they must be a policy holder. If you look back through the ALRC advice to Government by Michael Kirby you will see why.
            In practice when I was an insurance broker all the insurers I dealt with "when pushed" paid out because the legal advice they had was narrow interpretation you are using would fail. Ie They calculated a premium for the loss or damage to the property. If they were able to avoid paying some one who had an insurable interest due to a technicality, it was a windfall gain whilst someone else suffered.

            You also need to look at this in context, it was a toddler that caused the damage who could not make an informed decision. If it was a teenager it would be malicious damage and they would have no entitlement to claim.

            A classic example is rental car companies that exploit this.
            They all insure their fleet of motor vehicles which covers drivers for all loss or damage to the vehicle, but they do not tell the customer this. They then sell a product called "Collision Damage Waiver" or CDW . You should note they never mention the word insurance. What they do not tell you is that the vehicle is already insured, CDW income goes to the rental car company and is almost pure profit. It is also a means of convincing those that do not take out CDW to pay for loses that the insurer also paid for.

            • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 21:46

              @jhmtaylor:

              it was a toddler that caused the damage who could not make an informed decision.

              Alternatively it was caused by the toddlers exercising insufficient supervision, who can make informed decisions. Just like if your pet causes damage - you'd still be liable.

              It is also a means of convincing those that do not take out CDW to pay for loses that the insurer also paid for.

              Irrelevant. Just like in this case, if you're not the policy holder, you can't make a claim, and you have no right to force anyone to make that claim, even if they can.

  • rlay3 on 08/01/2019 - 18:20

    Toddlers aside, how about if you trip on the rug or table leg and fall into the TV and damage it?

    • azm on 08/01/2019 - 20:01

      I was meant to ask the same question, what if you are tripped by their rugs/ cables and happen to damage the TV?

      • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 09:54
        +1

        Depends on if the rugs or cables were in a way that posed a real risk of tripping, or if the person tripping is just a klutz. If the first, the HN would be negligent in not providing a space safe from tripping hazards.

    • hasher22 on 08/01/2019 - 20:35

      Most likely the customer would get away since they can turn around and say its a health hazzard either 1) not paying for the TV and 2) the company avoiding a law suit.

      • rlay3 on 08/01/2019 - 23:41

        Ok how about if I'm drinking out of my full metal water bottle and I accidentally drop it and it smashes a glass coffee table?

        • UFO on 09/01/2019 - 08:22
          +3

          Well without going into every single conceivable scenario, it's pretty clear who would be at fault in that scenario.

          If you drop something hard on a glass table accidentally, then you'd be at fault.
          If you tripped on a hazard that caused you to drop that same item, then they'd be at fault.

          Ask yourself who caused the damage to occur in the first place, and then you'll know who's responsible for costs.

          • rlay3 on 09/01/2019 - 11:14
            +1

            @UFO: I'd even question tripping over a rug though. Is a rug placed normally in a lounge room set up a tripping hazard? You could trip over anything.

  • frozenkuku on 09/01/2019 - 10:39
    -1

    I will just buy that TV, bargain as hard as you can
    and then claim through ur own home insurance to replace a new one

    • Wardaddy on 09/01/2019 - 12:08

      Like a liar you mean?

  • justtoreply on 09/01/2019 - 11:43
    +2

    One thing really pssing me off in the comments is people assume the toddler wasn't being supervised adequately. You can supervise them EXTREMELY VIGILANTLY and very likely (I wasn't there and don't know if there was actually a degree of forewarning) there is NOTHING you can do about it.

    If anyone here thinks they can duck down and grab a toddlers bottle in the two seconds before they can throw it (if there was no forewarning) then you must be from the DC or Marvel universes.

    Hopefully most comments like this are made from non-parents. If you're a non-parent (or not taking care of a child for full days at a time) then no offense but you're not well informed consequently you can't have a valid opinion (aka. a bloody clue).

    I would still pay though. They've asked a very reasonable amount. In fact I think they've been very good to you at only $1000! You have every right to check if they are insured and pay only the excess.. but frankly, at this price, I'm not sure that arguing or pushing harder is in your interest.

    • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 12:35
      +1

      One thing really pssing me off in the comments is people assume the toddler wasn't being supervised adequately.

      If your kid caused thousands of dollars in damage, by very definition you didn't supervise them property - possibly by taking them into that place to begin with. I imagine you could supervise a kid very closely in a vase shop and they'd still cause damage, because you shouldn't be taking them there to begin with.

      And OP's wife gave their toddler something they could throw. That was certainly unnecessary.

      • DarthAntz on 09/01/2019 - 12:36

        So wife should be paying the $1000? ;P

        • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 12:39
          +1

          Good luck to OP if he tried that…

    • rlay3 on 09/01/2019 - 13:34

      I agree with this. It's just unnecessary judgements. The kid could have been a thrower, and in that case the parents shouldn't have given them something to throw, but we don't know that. If my kid just decided to try out their baseball pitch for the first time, then I'm still responsible but I don't want to hear people telling me I didn't supervise them properly. I will watch my kids all the time near a pool, you can't watch them all the time when you're at the furniture shop.

      • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 13:36
        +1

        I will watch my kids all the time near a pool, you can't watch them all the time when you're at the furniture shop.

        Why can't you?

        • rlay3 on 09/01/2019 - 13:46

          You can. You can do anything. Joe Hockey suggests for everyone to get higher paying jobs.

          • HighAndDry on 09/01/2019 - 14:08

            @rlay3: Oh christ you're one of those.

            • rlay3 on 09/01/2019 - 14:21

              @HighAndDry: Interesting. I thought the same thing when I read your comment too.

              Humour me, one of what?

  • Wardaddy on 09/01/2019 - 12:06

    Accept responsibility for your little brat's actions and pay up. I'm calling bulltish on this anyway, a toddler can't throw a water bottle hard enough to break a tv. Something else happened.

  • jimmy c on 09/01/2019 - 14:09
    +1

    You take a toddler into a china shop, you break it you own it!!!!

    I worked in a retail warehouse where customers would bring in children and let them climb over stock like it was a playground.
    We have signs everywhere! do not climb… children must be supervised at all times by parent or guardian!!! etc

    We would let dog owners bring in pets, rather than let them sit in cars because pet owners were way more responsible than "some" parents.

    But (some) children are a nightmare because their parents zone out. I see their eyes glaze over as kids do dangerous shit and I have to tell them not to wipe, climb, swing, soil, and rip off tags from stock.

    Retail stores are not child minding centers.

    If you brought a toddler to a shopping mall and it wandered off fell down the stairs, would you blame the mall security? Pretty sure the police would not.

    We get parents asking if their 4 year old kids can ride seat activated fork lifts because they are having a tantrum because they can't and "are so into trucks right now." Why don't they just let their toddlers drive the whole family home in that Nissan twin cab they arrived in I wonder..

    One thing that was almost certain in that store is these careless parents never bought anything.

    We had a tally of bad kid/parent combos to successful sale ratio of virtually zero.

    Next time you take your kid to a china shop, strap it in to the pram or grab it by the hand and don't give it potential projectiles and keep it under control.

    I see excellent mothers and fathers lugging around badly behaved kids like sacks of potatoes and doing an excellent job of a bad situation. So i am not saying it is easy. But those glazed eye zoned out devil may care parents that ignore their badly behaved kids are the worst.

    The store has to pay excess for the insurance on that incident all they are doing is charging cost so they don't have to shell out the likely $600 ish excess on the incident.

    The original posters does not seem like those bad parents i am speaking of. However if that child threw something damaging another child instead of a consumer appliance, it would not have to be the store that had to cough up!

    • chumlee on 09/01/2019 - 16:21
      +1

      You glad you got that off your chest now?

      • jimmy c on 16/01/2019 - 13:27
        +1

        Much better now! Namaste!

  • jerjergege on 09/01/2019 - 14:20
    +1

    Lol you emailed ACCC before reading their policy on it.

    They'll just email you https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/busine…

  • paulojr on 09/01/2019 - 15:46
    -1

    On balance, legal path is my thoughts.

    $1000 for repair of a ex-demo samsung gear is NOT reasonable. Using the RRP to assess the cost of repair is dumb. Quick scan on gumtree see's ones for parts at $100, factory seconds a few hundred. Won't cost $1000 to get it back to "acceptable condition". No way.

    Reasons you should not be paying that amount:
    1) Proof the stock was placed safety and wasn't damaged already. Insurance (minus an excess) and management of stock safety is their obligation.

    2) Proof the stock was properly placed and protect. Lucky the child didn't get hurt by the glass, then you would be sueing Harvey Norman.

    3) Think like the retailer.
    As I said the damage isn't worth $1000. What does harvey norman do if they are at fault for warranty? Easy .. ask anyone that has had to deal with their warranty, they roll out an "acceptable quality statement" (e.g. dead pixel policy, right to replace with refurb, etc) then do the least possible to fix the issue. e.g. fix it as cheaply as possible for them, get them a second hand one to replace their ex-demo. etc. You don't need to pay them for lost profit here!!

    Gotta be far amount if you really think its your childs fault. In future, shop at better retailers with better store layout and better customer attitude. Any manager with a good brain ensures his/her store is layed out properly to consider children. That said, last time I was in a harvey they had TV's placed in extremly dangerous positions (e.g. on small stands ready to topple on kids) so my guess is the store manager is not good and at least partly at fault for creating a situation where damage was easy to do. I'd had children throw plastic bottles and other similar items at our Sony screens, never seen such damage, so struggling to believe you kid did this.

  • eye on 09/01/2019 - 16:17

    Well, the cheapest on ozbargain is about $1600. If I were OP, I would ask if they can sell another one at that price. You are essentially getting a nice TV with full price not nothing with half price.

    • Eeples on 13/01/2019 - 18:18
      +1

      Floor stock for $1600 was it?

  • shaybisc on 09/01/2019 - 16:32

    Crikey this has run and run. Has the High Court delivered a verdict yet?

    I doubt this really happened either. A lot of the ethical challenges that come up for discussion here remind me of a Torts question and answer textbook I spent some time with long ago.

    • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 11:27

      I think its dragged on because of the moral and then the possible legal responsibilities. Morally they should pay and I believe OP has advised in another post early on that they have. As a legal point of view I dont think they have to pay as HN would need to put in an insurance claim and then insurance company would persue the OP. If it is worth their effort which for a 1k item probably not. So OP can getaway with not paying and just let the other party chase them up.

      Another post where the OP doesn't take responsibility for theirs actions or their children's responsibility as a parent to supervise. These parents are the ones that wreak it for others. So you don't look after your kids and then shops put everything behind bullet proof glass. I'm not a fan of HN, but as a store owner its hard enough competing against online sales. The shop id puting these items in so you can see them befoe pruchasing and although it happens that they can be damaged would you just want to see a picture of the item. Thats why there are stores. Which are dying becuase online is the way of the future not BM.

      I still like to look at the item in store, and beleive others do to even if they end up buying online.

      • HighAndDry on 13/01/2019 - 10:42

        as HN would need to put in an insurance claim

        This is incorrect - if you crash into someone's car, even if they're insured they don't have to claim with their insurance to recover from you.

        OP is both morally and legally on the hook, and rightly so.

        • Melb69 on 13/01/2019 - 14:10

          As usual with these posts. OP's always want a justification to get out of it. I say only legally responsible. If Hardly Normal don't go the insurance way they could then go the legal way. Still up to the shop owner to chase up for compensation. Or they just write it off. Hence why the OP could of rolled the dice and let HN chase him up for the compensation for damaging goods.

  • Captain M on 09/01/2019 - 17:31
    -3

    This sounds like a kid brought up by subcontinent parents, without any control.

    I bet you any money the kid:
    1) Doesnt eat at the table, but the mum needs to run around the house with the food to feed him.

    2) Doesnt sleep in his own room, but sleeps in with the parents in their bed.

    3) Draws on walls.

  • Japius on 09/01/2019 - 18:13
    +1

    The excess on commercial insurance for a retailers franchise like Harvey Norman would be above $20k, if it were me I’d tell the, to get a repair quote, maybe also speak with the rep from the manufacturer to see if they can help bring the price down as it was a display tv, and then negotiate with the franchisee to pay half the actual cost, as it was a display tv it would never sell for full retail they have to be prepared to take a small hit on it too

  • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 18:41
    +2

    All these people advising the OP not to pay and that "this is what insurance is for"

    What do you do if you damage someone's car when parking?

    Do you just drive away thinking "their insurance will pay". Conveniently ignoring the excess and premium increase.

  • AustriaBargain on 09/01/2019 - 19:06
    -2

    You've already apologised for the accident. Now just ignore it. If they can compel you to pay for it, let them try. It doesn't matter if you are legally obligated to buy it once a display model is broken, they have to do something about it in order to make you pay. If they don't do something about it then it's like that law doesn't even exist as far as you're concerned.

  • littleDealFish on 10/01/2019 - 13:14
    +2

    I'm not a fan of HN but the answer is really simple.

    If this was your business and someone came in with a child that broke $1000+ equipment would you assume the customer should pay?

    I feel like anyone would say yes. Insurance has an excess, not to mention the paperwork/legwork involved.

    It's a shitty situation, but that's life, accidents happen - just in this case you have to take responsibility for this accident as it is your child.

  • isthisreallife22 on 10/01/2019 - 13:22
    +3

    Was just reading this, and literally 30 mins later my toddler just threw a full water bottle at me because of some random reason. I suppose I'm a negligent parent.

    • HighAndDry on 10/01/2019 - 14:13
      +4

      Only if you took your kid into an electronics shop and still gave them a water bottle to throw. At home - well, your property, you can decide if you want your kid around your crystalware.

      • isthisreallife22 on 10/01/2019 - 15:00
        +4

        Well I do have to look at electronics shops on occasion (in fact we went to the good guys for boxing day) and more often than not as a toddler she would be holding a drink bottle. Turns out that not only am I shadow of my former self, constantly tired, and trying my hardest to make an ok life for my family, I'm also negligent omg

        • HighAndDry on 10/01/2019 - 16:06
          +1

          I mean, if you're gonna have a kid, you're volunteering for more responsibility. Just comes with the territory. At least you haven't had an incident like OP's, so you're either lucky or doing something right.

  • myfuturej on 11/01/2019 - 15:43
    -2

    I am surprised that there is so much sentiment for Harvey Norman, they are a large Aussie multinational corporation for crying out loud. One broken TV does not change anything for them. People seemed to think, “but if you come into my home and break something I own, you have to pay for it” Yes, someone should because you are an individual earning less than 150k a year (otherwise, why are you in this site?), meanwhile HN has almost 300 shops!

    • littleDealFish on 11/01/2019 - 23:06
      +2

      I think the takeway here is that 'earning less than 150k a year' does not mean you are exempt from responsibility…

      • netjock on 13/01/2019 - 14:57

        Apparently in Australia anyone making more than 150K is fair game and less than 150K is "poor" people making it so easy in this country I am surprised no one else has adopted it.

        If I was making 150k in a country town with property for 150k I'm rich as the guy in a capital city making 150k paying 900k for property.

    • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 11:14
      +3

      Some stores are individuals with a franchise and which could be mums and dads just trying to make a living. So if you were the franchise wouldn't you want compensation for some parent that wasn't watching their child in a store, because they wanted a new fridge. How did the kids end up in the TV section? Come on.

      Plus what has the store numbers and how much they make got to do with it. You justify the Op for not to pay HN, but you wouldn't let your friends get away with it. A bit hypercritical don't you think.

  • isthisreallife22 on 13/01/2019 - 14:26
    +3

    If I ran a retail store I'd make sure I had insurance for this kind of thing

    All this is achieving is further reducing the likelihood of me visiting HN

  • Brucet on 13/01/2019 - 17:26

    Paid & learn a lesson.
    It was intentional not ( accident ).
    cheer

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join