S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad

[Bexx27]

The damaged laptop thread reminded me of a thread I came across on another message board a few years ago. The OP was a nanny for a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts. The child (Herman) had been known to throw and break objects such as vases and picture frames in the family's home.

While the family's home was undergoing renovations, the nanny (Annie) agreed to care for Herman in her own home to avoid the construction during the day. Annie's ipad was sitting on the coffee table. Herman grabbed it and threw it down the stairs, breaking it. Annie believed that Herman's parents should pay for a replacement. Many of those posting in the thread agreed with her, but if I were Herman's mother I would not consider myself responsible. Annie was aware of Herman's destructive tendencies and was being paid to supervise him. What do you think?

[123sandy]

I think the parents should have paid for it.

[TootsNYC]

I think that the parents should pay. Lord knows *I* would.

Because while Annie knows this about the kid, she also is doing me a huge favor by caring for him in her home--which she probably hasn't had that much time to Herman-proof.

[squashedfrog]

The child deliberately broke the laptop? I'd say they parents should pay.   Sometimes you can't just keep using conditions as excuses.

[Alpacas]

The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.

[Two Ravens]

The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.

"Herman-proofing" was not necessary, but an iPad is easily put on a shelf and out of the child's reach. What was the nanny thinking having it out around Herman?

But I do think the parents should pay for at least half since the nanny was doing them the extra favor of taking care of Herman in her home.

[lkdrymom]

If Herman acciddentally broke the IPAD I would say it is on the nanny....but he didn't...he purposely broke it so his parents should pay.

[perpetua]

The parents are on the hook. Their destructive child, his deliberate action, their responsibility.

[dawbs]

The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.

This.
Honestly, this is very reminiscent to me of the parents in "Calvin and Hobbes" paying through the nose to the ONLY sitter who will deal w/ Calvin.  These parents have an intentionally destructive child.  They have a nanny who watches said destructive child AND who was willing to host the child in her house as a huge favor to them---even if it's highway robbery (which I don't think it is), you pay it--because a nanny willing to put up with the child and still do favors is worth it.

(this isn't the comic I'm thinking of, but, close enough--recurring theme 

http://webspace.webring.com/people/hu/um_8572/ch/chros.gif)

[Bexx27]

Interesting to hear these perspectives. I guess my thought process was:

Who is responsible? Herman. But since Herman is a child, the person who has to take financial responsibility is whoever was responsible for him at the time --> Annie. But I can understand the point of view that parents are always responsible for their children's actions, whether they are present/in charge at the time or not, although I'm not sure I totally agree. It's also a good point that Annie was doing them a favor by watching him in her home.

Out of curiosity, what if Annie had taken Herman to a playdate in another family's home and Herman had damaged something there? Would the parents still be responsible or would it be Annie?

[Sharnita]

What if the parents had dropped Herman off for a playdate?  Would the parents of the friend be on the hook or his parents? Personally, I would expect his parents to pay, even though friend's parents were supervising.  Deliberate destruction of property goes a bit beyond regular child proofing.

I would think that replacing the item might be easier in the long run than finding another babysitter who will deal with that behavior.

[Hmmmmm]

If this wasn't a nanny who was well acquainted with the child, I would say the parents should most definately pay. But this nanny was being paid to care fro the child,  knew the habits of the child and chose to leave an expensive items easily accesible to him.

As the parent, I would pay if asked. But I'd feel the nanny was very careless in leaving the item out and was maybe not watching the child as closely as needed.

It's sort of like I agree to dog sit in my home. I am aware the dog chews on shoes and know to put shoes away but lI eave a pair out accessible to the dog. I wouldn't ask my friend to pay for the shoes because it was my mistake.

[Outdoor Girl]

This one is less clear cut to me than the laptop, glass of water, cat one.

On one hand, Annie is doing the family a huge favour, getting Herman away from the house during the construction.

On the other hand, she is well aquainted with his destructive behavior and left out an expensive item within easy reach.

As the parent, it might depend on how good a nanny Annie is.  If she is fantastic with Herman and they really love her, they should pay for the iPad in the interests of good will.

Otherwise, as the parent, I would offer half the replacement cost.  Because the nanny was doing me a huge favour but ultimately, Herman was my child.

[hobish]

If this wasn't a nanny who was well acquainted with the child, I would say the parents should most definately pay. But this nanny was being paid to care fro the child,  knew the habits of the child and chose to leave an expensive items easily accesible to him.

As the parent, I would pay if asked. But I'd feel the nanny was very careless in leaving the item out and was maybe not watching the child as closely as needed.

It's sort of like I agree to dog sit in my home. I am aware the dog chews on shoes and know to put shoes away but lI eave a pair out accessible to the dog. I wouldn't ask my friend to pay for the shoes because it was my mistake.

I disagree only because it was an intentional act of destruction. Dogs and cats aren’t kids and aren't really as accountable. This was no accident, it was deliberate. For the parents to react in a “Well, you know how he is…” kind of way would make me so angry I doubt I’d be their nanny much longer if I were she.

[Sharnita]

There is also a lot more deliberation in Herman's intentional destructiin of the ipad and the cat knocking a glass of water onto a laptop.