Junior, where are you, what are you doing?
However, the supervision of parents hurt provable, they are liable and regulates the private insurance. The legislature has not regulated, from what age children home alone, may be playing in the garden or on the road. These freedoms must make the parents by the age and mental and spiritual development of the child. For a healthy socialization and have children to play. This is true even if traded impulsive and rash, when running after a ball that rolls into the street and have the parents do not therefore necessarily violated its duty of supervision. Injured but can also mean that you your loss is not replaced.
This is disturbing in the long term, if there are neighbors or friends who have been harmed. Since then a good relationship so far is at stake. Wrong so the parents attitude that the insurance does not pay if you have not taken care properly for his child. Wrong! Only those who have breached its duty of supervision, responsible parents and to take out insurance. Who has not subsequently determined paying attention, should indicate this to the insurer and not just assert the claim, that he / she had seen all the time and the injury happened, when there was not looking for a minute.
Who now shy away from possible trouble with neighbors, can make arrangements for children under seven years in additional liability protection of their parents. Here, the insured sum is usually but not limited to 3,000 to 5,000 euros, or afflicted with an excess of claims. An extra protection, but so far offered only every other insurer.
As for the Vandals?
An HP will pay but then not cover damage if a child over seven years this has caused intentionally. The now known as 'hooliganism'. Lubricates the offspring walls with paint full or he throws a window panes, this counts as 'harm-inclined', for which the child or the parents just stick. Evidence that the damage with intent or with gross negligence was, however, is difficult and therefore, whether intent was present and whether the child was able to assess his actions.
"Were you a 'harm-inclined child'?" - "Non!" - "Then maybe your descendants and your grandchildren ..." - Sorry, but it is now in the parents and even about that no damage is to replace has added a child to someone else physically or taught about things. For when children cause damage, often begins and usually armed with their own liability. For controversial is often the duty of supervision, but are not practiced by parents at any minute as well.
What was recently on the sidewalk? The Titch with helmet, bicycling on the sidewalk, accompanied by her mother, with them on the wheel of the road. The Small varies falls against a parked vehicle. The mother is worried both about the shoot as well as to the potential harm. For sheer surprise, she provides her bike down so that this rumbling from the car ...
How, then such damage is regulated? pay the civil liability of the parents must be: For the injured no question. And feel "off the hook" because such insurance is actually running for years. Such damage caused by children, but are not always regulated. The facts of liability in fact, depends on the age of the child and the question of whether the parents have violated the duty of supervision.
Limited rights - limited liability
Just as the fact that only occurs with the age of seven, the limited capacity in connection with the pocket money-paragraphs of the BGB, are children under seven years is not capable of crime. Result, the parents can not be held liable for claims caused by the child. Except if the child is extremely detrimental inclined, which is also striking, and requires constant supervision.
So whether Bagatellschaden or accident in the marketing of property, or even damage to person - not in every case, parents must pay for the consequences of accidents or damage to property. This tort protection for children in road traffic is even extended: Until the age of ten must for any damage they cause in moving traffic not stuck.
