Any time a parent's poor judgment results in harm or injury to a child, it's a sad case. This story, however, seems particularly tragic. According to The Telegraph, a British woman whose daughter was seriously injured in a car crash was found negligent and partially responsible for her daughter's injuries because the girl was riding in an inappropriate child safety seat.

While the accident was judged to be entirely the fault of the other driver, according to the report, his insurance company insisted that part of the responsibility for the girl's injuries fell on her mother. Despite having an appropriate car seat with a five-point harness in the vehicle, the three-year-old girl was riding in a booster seat designed for older children. The judge agreed with the insurer and ruled that the mother was 25 percent liable for her child's head, spinal and internal injuries, which the report said will affect her for the rest of her life. The decision means the woman will receive less financial compensation from the insurance company.

While we're sure that the woman – who was described by the judge as "an excellent and caring mother," according to the report – feels no small measure of guilt, her case reinforces the necessity of proper seatbelt and child safety seat use. For more information about keeping kids safe in and around cars, please visit Parents Central, provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 47 Comments
      johnbravo6
      • 2 Years Ago
      Scary. So, now if the government says it, it must be fact. However, the insurance company saved some money. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
      Mallthus
      • 2 Years Ago
      Remember this when you sit idly by and let lawmakers implement rules like last years American Association of Pediatrics reccomendation, that all children under 4'9" should be in a booster. My daughter didn't hit 4'9" until high school. Although it might have been "safer" for her to be in a booster, the practical aspects of actually doing so would be untenable.
        aug122000
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mallthus
        Luckily her body is able to withstand crash forces in just the adult seatbelt at puberty, when her skeleton becomes physically adult. That's what saves other short adults like myself (I'm 5'1", and a carseat technician. I'm still safer than kids I look eye to eye with in my 10 year old's class).
      tributetodrive
      • 2 Years Ago
      "The decision means the woman will receive less financial compensation from the insurance company."
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Hek!
        • 2 Years Ago
        I'll have kids if I want them, it keeps the gene pool fresh. That's more important than overpopulation. Without a good gene pool people will become something like: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/285/SamUgliestDogLulu_sm.jpg That kind of genetically deficient creature does not have the mental faculty to control how much it mates, therefore: If most of us don't at least have SOME kids the world will be completely overrun by people who look like said creature above. Come at me.
        • 2 Years Ago
        [blocked]
          • 2 Years Ago
          [blocked]
        Big Squid
        • 2 Years Ago
        People who are worried about overpopulation tend to be materialistic white people who are afraid of n*****s moving into their neighborhood. Don't like kids? Chop your own nads off with a weedeater.
          XJ Yamaha
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Big Squid
          Good Lord, how is that rational at all? Are you saying that as long as men have "nads" they are unable to control who they reproduce with? And why did you turn this into a racial issue? Where is your empirical evidence that only materialistic whites who are afraid of blacks are afraid of overpopulation? Yeah, that's what I thought you brainless twit.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Big Squid
          [blocked]
        Sj027
        • 2 Years Ago
        We saw your idiotic post the first time.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Sj027
        • 2 Years Ago
        Whites and East Asians are already for the most part reproducing below the rate needed for replacement, Singapore, South Korea, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, France, Japan, US are all examples of this phenomenon.
        WillieD
        • 2 Years Ago
        Go tell it to people in India and Africa.
        • 2 Years Ago
        [blocked]
          Tiberius1701
          • 2 Years Ago
          Discovery/History Channels ahve a job waiting for you Nick..they have people overthere who are positviely orgasmic ove the thought of the fall of Man. You would fit in just fine there.
          Brett
          • 2 Years Ago
          Take your argument somewhere that cares. 4chan, maybe? This is a car website.
        Rob J
        • 2 Years Ago
        While I stupport population limitation your way of thinking about is still flawed. We need at least a relatively steady flow of new people into the world. Otherwise you are going to end up with a bunch of 70 year olds and no young people to work in any of the services they use (everything from nuring homes, Denny's and Cadillac dealerships). 2.3 kids on average per couple. The magic number. Anyway, this story is kind of sad. It's similar to saying "you didn't wear a helmet while walking down the street so even though you were hit by a drunk driver it's PARTIALLY your fault". It may be technically true, but it's not how we should run our world.
          WillieD
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Rob J
          I tried having .3 of a baby...needless to say I wasn't successful. Only kidding...heh
      mbukukanyau
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wow, personal responsibility! What a concept?
      stclair5211
      • 2 Years Ago
      And the march toward the government owning our kids continues.
        creamwobbly
        • 2 Years Ago
        @stclair5211
        This was in the UK where people are "subjects", not "citizens", i.e. (nominally) owned by the Crown. So, if this is a march toward being owned by the government, that's one step closer to freedom.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @stclair5211
        [blocked]
      xspeedy
      • 2 Years Ago
      So what about motorcyclists that refuse to wear a helmet, leathers, boots, and other pertinent protective gear and are critically injured in an accident where they might otherwise walk away? Can't count how many times I see a kid on a crotch rocket in shorts, t-shirt, and flip flops going down the Interstate at 80. No helmet of course.
        thedriveatfive
        • 2 Years Ago
        @xspeedy
        And guess what, its not the insurance company that really pays for it when they wreck and sit in an ICU for 3 weeks at $5000, its the other insurers whos rates are adjusted....
          Philip M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @thedriveatfive
          Yep, same people who pay for health related costs of cigarettes & obesity. Get off your judgmental ass and stop allowing insurance companies and fraudulent government organizations dictate our behavior. The judge in this case ought to be locked up. This baby seat scam is completely out of hand.
          RocketRed
          • 2 Years Ago
          @thedriveatfive
          The insurer could refuse the claim, citing the behaviors you listed, if that is in the policy. However, in that case, the rider gets treatment on the goverment dime, and we all pay. (Yes, he could be stuck with the bills if he doesn't get public money, in which case he just goes bankrupt and goes onto the dole. It happens.) Or the insurer shells out six figures for treatment for a guy who probably paid only a few thousand into the pot, i.e., the other customers pay his costs. So we pay either way. So this sort of flag-waving libertarian-ish nonesense about the government and the insurers "dictating our behavior" is just incredibly naive. It's not anyone's behavior-slash-freedom that is at issue, its who pays and how when you crack open your freedom-loving skull on the pavement because no one is going to force you to wear a helmet.
      Sasha
      • 2 Years Ago
      When I read this, I thought it meant she would be tried criminally for the injury. That would be horrible. But, reducing the insurance payout she gets..I mean, it only makes sense. Part of the cause of the injury was using the wrong childseat. So part of the financial liability should fall on her. It sounds cold, but...
      rexey
      • 2 Years Ago
      I guess I don't understand... If I was walking in a crosswalk and was hit by a car, The owners insurance would pay 100% because of initation of fault. Not paying the full amount due to not having faster running shoes on or MC hammer pants to cushion the blow is not morally wrong for trying not to pay its criminal and shows that the insurance lobby owns the UK even more than here in the US. The family has my prayers.
      Ulf
      • 2 Years Ago
      As every adult should know babies and toddlers should be in a rear facing seat. I assume that the offspring in question was in a forward facing one which explains the sustained injuries. Had it been properly restrained in a correct seat the infant would most probably have "walked" away without any injuries at all.
        pinsimms99
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ulf
        As the article states, the child was in a booster seat. I don't know the age/weight ranges for either, but she had the appropriate seat in the car, but didn't use it. Maybe the child was too big for the other seat?
        Ben
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ulf
        This child was three years old; in the US, the recommended age to switch a child to front-facing was recently raised to two years. However, this child was in a booster seat instead of a car seat with head bracing.
          creamwobbly
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ben
          That's the *minimum* age to switch to front-facing. In other words, you don't have to switch to front-facing on the child's second birthday! You should maintain rear-facing as long as the child's legs aren't hampered by the vehicle's seat back. This may be 3 or even 4 years.
        Ken
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ulf
        It wasn't an infant. The article clearly states it was a 3-year old. No three year old should be in a rear facing seat. If this were a U.S. case, it would have been insurance company lawyers and the at-fault driver would have had the burden of inappropriate seat, not just guidelines from the manufacturer.
      AJ
      • 2 Years Ago
      I was supportive of this judgment until the " will receive less financial compensation from the insurance company" part. Poor little girl.
    • Load More Comments