Child Damaging Someone Else's Property in Kuwait: Are the Parents Liable to Pay?

It takes a single careless moment for an ordinary afternoon to turn into a dispute between neighbours, or between a shopkeeper and a child's parents. A football hits the neighbour's window. A boy drags a key along the side of a parked car. A toddler pulls a tablet off a display shelf in a shop and it shatters on the floor. Nobody meant any harm, yet the owner of the damaged property is holding a repair bill, and the parents are facing an awkward question: do we actually have to pay? Is the child himself answerable when he barely understands what he did? Does the answer change if the child is very young, or if he is a teenager who knew perfectly well that he was doing wrong?

This article deals with one narrow question: damage to other people's property caused by a child, and how Kuwaiti civil law treats it. We will not repeat the general rules on liability for the acts of others, which have their own article, liability for the acts of others under Kuwaiti law. We apply those rules to children and to property only. Nor do we cover the criminal side of a minor's conduct, which is the subject of juvenile cases in Kuwaiti law. What follows is about civil compensation for property that was damaged, nothing else.

We begin with the basic question of whether the child himself can be held liable. We then move to the people responsible for supervising him, namely parents and, while the child is in their care, schools, and to the presumption of negligent supervision the law places on them, and how that presumption is answered. After that come everyday examples, proof of damage, how compensation is assessed, friendly settlement, and practical advice for both sides, because the parents and the injured owner each need to know where they stand before an irritation becomes a lawsuit.

Quick Answer

The starting point in the Kuwaiti Civil Code is that anyone who wrongfully causes damage to another must make it good. But fault presupposes understanding. A child without discernment (a very young child) is not treated as having committed fault in the legal sense, so he is not answerable as an adult would be. A child with discernment can be held answerable for his harmful act, because he broadly understands what he is doing. In neither case is the injured owner left without a remedy. The law places responsibility on the person charged with supervising the child: usually the father or mother, with supervision passing temporarily to the school or another carer for as long as the child is in their charge.

That responsibility rests on a presumption of negligent supervision. The owner need only show that the child caused the damage and that the defendant was responsible for supervising him at the time. Negligence is then presumed. The defendant can rebut it by proving that he supervised the child as he should have, or that the damage would have happened anyway despite proper care. Saying "he is only a child" or "we did not mean it" does not rebut anything.

In practice: document the damage immediately with photographs, invoices and witnesses, and begin with a written, friendly demand. Most of these incidents end in a reasonable settlement when the real loss is shown with evidence and the parents respond responsibly. If settlement fails, the route is a civil claim for compensation, and the judge assesses compensation to repair the actual loss, no more and no less.

The Legislative Framework

The first source is the Kuwaiti Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980. It contains the general rule on liability for harmful acts and the specific rules on liability for the acts of others, including the liability of a person who has to supervise someone who needs supervision because of age. The idea behind it is simple: whoever carries the duty of supervising a person who cannot protect himself, and cannot be relied on to protect others from himself, bears the consequences of failing in that duty.

It is completed by the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, Law No. 39 of 1980, which sets out who bears the burden of proof and by what means, and which facts may be proved by witnesses and presumptions and which require a document. That matters a great deal in damage cases, which usually happen in seconds and leave no paperwork. Procedure itself, meaning filing the claim, submitting documents, appointing experts and hearing witnesses, is governed by the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Law No. 38 of 1980.

Other legislation surrounds the child's position generally without regulating compensation for damaged property in detail. The Child Rights Law, Law No. 21 of 2015 sets out the child's right to care and upbringing and the duties of the family and the state, and we discussed it in children's rights in Kuwaiti law. The Juvenile Law, Law No. 111 of 2015 deals with criminal responsibility and measures concerning juveniles, which is outside this article, because our subject is civil compensation for property rather than punishment or corrective measures.

One methodological point deserves emphasis: a civil compensation claim is independent in its basis and conditions from any criminal proceeding. There may be no criminal consequence at all because the child is too young to be prosecuted, and yet the supervisor is civilly liable. The reverse can also happen. So an injured owner should not assume that the absence of a criminal complaint extinguishes the civil claim, and parents should not assume that their child escaping criminal consequences relieves them of compensation.

The Substantive Rules

First: the child without discernment

Discernment is the capacity to understand what an act is and what follows from it. The Kuwaiti Civil Code fixes a stage of childhood below which a child is regarded as lacking discernment, and his legal position differs from that of a child who has it. A child without discernment is not said to have committed fault, because fault involves understanding and a departure from how a reasonable person behaves, and that cannot be attributed to someone who does not grasp what he is doing. A baby who throws a cup on the floor, or a small child who scribbles on a neighbour's wall with no idea of ownership, has not "erred" in law.

That does not mean the owner loses his right. Responsibility moves to whoever supervises the child, which is the wider door in these cases. In addition, Kuwaiti civil law, like many comparative systems, recognises an equitable fallback: if there is nobody responsible for supervising the child, or compensation cannot be obtained from the person who is, the judge may, depending on the circumstances and the financial position of the parties, order the child who caused the damage to pay fair compensation. This is an exceptional power that depends on the judge's assessment and the parties' means, so it should not be treated as the rule.

Second: the child with discernment

A child with discernment broadly understands what he is doing, so fault can be attributed to him and he can be personally liable, in his own property, for the damage he causes. A teenager who deliberately smashes a car window or scratches a car out of spite or for fun answers for what he did. The owner then has two routes that can be combined: a claim against the child in his own property, if he has any, and a claim against the supervisor for failing to supervise. They do not conflict. The claim is usually directed at both, and the court may order them to pay jointly according to the law and its own assessment.

In real life a child rarely has independent funds sufficient to repair the damage, so enforcement is in practice directed at the supervisor. A supervisor who pays can in principle seek reimbursement from a child who is himself liable, but that recourse is theoretical in nearly every family, since a parent does not realistically pursue a small child. We mention it so that the reader understands the legal structure, not as advice.

Third: the person who supervises

The supervisor is the person who, by law or by agreement, has to oversee someone who needs supervision because of age or condition. For a child, the father and mother come first by virtue of guardianship, custody and upbringing. Supervision passes temporarily to whoever actually takes charge of the child through work or undertaking, such as the school during the school day, a nursery, or a supervisor on a club activity or trip. So the practical question is always: whose care was the child in at the moment of the damage?

Many people overlook this. If a child breaks glass in the school yard during school hours, the father is not the primary supervisor at that moment: the school administration and supervising teachers are. The reverse is also true. If the child is out with his father at a shopping centre, the father is the supervisor, even though the child is enrolled at a school nearby. The responsible party varies with time and place, and the court decides in whose hands supervision actually lay. We touched on a related angle in your child injured at school or nursery, where the child is the one harmed. In this article the child is the one who caused the harm.

There are also cases where supervision is shared or passes back and forth: both parents at home, a custodial mother after divorce and a father during visits, or a grandmother who minds the children. The rule is that whoever actually had the child in their care when the act occurred is the first to be asked to answer, without that meaning the other person is automatically cleared in every case. It depends on the circumstances and on the court's assessment.

Fourth: the presumption of negligence

The settled approach is that a supervisor's liability rests on presumed fault: the law assumes that the damage would not have occurred had supervision been properly exercised. The benefit to the injured owner is considerable. He is spared the near-impossible task of proving what the parents were doing at that very moment and how they fell short. He needs to show three things: damage to his property, that the child caused it, and that the defendant was supervising the child at the time.

The presumption can, however, be rebutted, so liability does not become absolute guarantee. A supervisor is released if he proves that he performed the duty of supervision in the usual way, or that the damage would have occurred regardless. We expand on this in the next section, because it is where most real disputes are fought.

Fifth: the keeper's liability alongside supervision

Sometimes another source of liability overlaps with the child's act: liability for things and animals. If a child damages property using something dangerous that a father left lying around, such as a firearm, a sharp tool or a car with the key within reach, or an uncontrolled dog, the supervisor's liability may combine with that of the keeper of the thing or animal. We covered that area in liability for things and animals in Kuwaiti law. It is useful for an owner to plead both bases together when drafting the claim: if one fails, the other remains.

Driving by a minor is an example. If a son damages a vehicle or a wall while driving his father's car, we are no longer dealing with a casual breakage by a child but with a vehicle accident with its own rules of insurance and traffic law. We gave that its own article, a minor son driving and causing an accident. This article is about everyday damage done by a child's own hand or by what he is holding.

Sixth: the owner's own fault

The incident is not examined from the child's and parents' side alone. The owner of the property may bear some share of the fault, which reduces or even removes compensation depending on its seriousness. Examples include a shop displaying fragile, expensive goods within a child's reach with no barrier, warning or supervision; an owner leaving a car where children are known to play without ordinary protection; or someone provoking or tempting a child into mischief. None of these automatically frees the parents, and the court weighs each party's fault and apportions responsibility accordingly.

A neighbouring area is visitor safety in shops and malls, whose general rules we set out in injury in a shopping centre, shop or restaurant. The duty of care and precaution that lies on a shop in that article applies in reverse here, when the shop is the injured party and the question is whether it took reasonable precautions itself.

Answering the claim: how negligence is rebutted

If you are sued as a parent or supervisor, the central defence is not denying that the child did it. If photographs and witnesses prove it, denial is pointless. The defence is showing that you supervised as a reasonable person would in your circumstances, or that the damage would have occurred in any event. All of this is for the court to assess, and there is no formula that always works.

The standard of ordinary supervision

The supervision required is not absolute, as if the child must never leave his father's sight. That is neither possible nor reasonable. It is supervision proportionate to the child's age and temperament, to the place he is in, and to the foreseeable danger. A very small child needs close accompaniment around fragile objects. A teenager playing in the neighbourhood with friends needs guidance and reasonable follow-up, not a hand to hold. The older the child, the less close physical supervision is expected and the more upbringing and prior instruction count.

What can help to rebut negligence

• The child was in the company of an attentive adult nearby, and the act happened so suddenly that no reasonable intervention was possible.
• The child had been told not to touch other people's property, and nothing in his earlier behaviour suggested a tendency to damage things.
• The act was outside what could be expected of a child of that age, or an outside cause pushed him to it, such as provocation by a third party.
• The child was in someone else's custody at the time, such as a school, a nursery or a relative the parents trusted, so supervision had genuinely passed to them.
• The property was exposed to danger in an unusual way through the owner's own fault, which reduces or removes compensation depending on the case.
• The damage was partly caused by a prior defect in the item, so the child is not charged with more than he actually caused.

What does not rebut negligence

It is generally not enough to say the parent was not present, or did not know, or that the child is "naughty by nature" or "never listens". Some of these excuses confirm negligence rather than negate it: a parent who knows his child is destructive and still leaves him alone beside neighbours' cars or among glass shelves in a shop has failed to take the usual precaution. Being busy at work or on the phone does not excuse either. Those are circumstances of carelessness, not defences.

Making the defence in practice

A good defence is built on detailed facts, not general phrases. The parent describes where and when the incident happened, who was present, what the child had been doing beforehand and exactly how it happened, and supports this with witnesses, camera footage, messages or school attendance records. He can ask for witnesses from the people present, staff at the place and security guards. He can also argue that the amount claimed is exaggerated or includes improvements unrelated to the damage. That is a separate argument from supervision and succeeds even if liability is accepted in principle.

Parents should avoid written or spoken admissions of negligence in the early stages of a dispute, for instance a text saying "we are at fault and will pay for everything", because such statements can later be used against them. That is not a reason to dodge responsibility. An apology and a good-faith offer to repair are decent conduct and do not diminish anyone's rights, but it is better for the offer to be framed as a friendly settlement that preserves both sides' positions rather than as an admission of fault.

Principles of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation's case law on liability for the acts of others has settled on several principles that apply to supervisors. We state them in general terms:

• The Court of Cassation has settled that a supervisor's liability for damage caused by a person who needs supervision rests on presumed fault in supervision, and that this places the burden of disproving it on the person held responsible, not on the injured party.
• It has settled that the presumption can be rebutted, and that the person held responsible is released if he proves that he performed the duty of supervision or that the damage would have occurred even had he done so.
• It has settled that identifying who was supervising at the time, and whether he performed that duty, are questions of fact for the trial court, provided its conclusion is reasonable and based on admissible evidence.
• It has settled that assessing compensation for material damage is within the trial court's authority, provided it states the elements of damage on which it based the assessment and does not contradict what is on the file.
• It has settled that compensation must repair the actual damage, neither more nor less, and that the injured party's own contributing fault, if proved, can reduce the liability of the defendant.

Methodological note: the above is a general account of established judicial trends. It does not quote particular judgments or cite appeal numbers. How these trends apply to a specific incident depends on its details and documents, and judicial approaches develop over time, so this overview is no substitute for consulting a lawyer who can review the latest position of the courts.

Practical Steps and Documents

For the injured owner

1. Document the damage immediately: photograph the broken glass, scratch or damaged device from several angles, showing date and place, and keep the damaged parts if you can.
2. Identify who caused it and who was supervising: the child's name, whoever was with him or responsible for him at the time, and their contact details.
3. Gather witnesses and camera footage: shops and homes overwrite their recordings after a while, so ask for a copy quickly.
4. Get a repair estimate: a written quotation from a workshop or specialist company, preferably more than one, and then the actual repair invoice once the work is done.
5. Notify the parents in writing: a calm, detailed message stating the incident, the damage, the amount claimed and a reasonable deadline for reply, and keep proof of delivery.
6. Offer a friendly settlement: it is faster, cheaper and better for neighbourly relations, as explained below.
7. If settlement fails: file a civil claim for compensation before the competent court, directed at the child (through his legal representative) and at the supervisor, with your evidence and, if needed, an expert's assessment.

For the parents

1. Do not ignore the demand: ignoring messages leads to litigation, which is costlier for everyone.
2. Establish what happened: ask your child calmly, listen to his account, check with those who were present, and do not admit anything before you know the details.
3. Ask for the documents: the photographs, the repair quotation and the invoice, and check that the damage really connects to the incident and that the amount is reasonable.
4. Check your insurance: some home or personal liability policies may cover damage family members cause to others, depending on each policy's terms, exclusions and notification requirements, so read yours or ask the insurer for a statement of cover before paying.
5. Negotiate in good faith: propose to repair the damage at your own expense directly, or to pay a defined sum, and put the agreement in a written settlement.
6. If a claim is filed: attend the hearings, prepare your defence on supervision, and keep the documents that show the circumstances.

Documents usually needed

• Photographs and recordings of the damage and the incident, with date and place.
• Proof of ownership of the damaged item: a purchase invoice, a vehicle registration, or the shop lease.
• Repair quotations or a valuation, and the actual repair invoice.
• Names and contact details of witnesses, and written statements if available.
• The correspondence between the parties: messages, chats and demand notices.
• Evidence of the defendant's capacity as supervisor, and of who legally represents the child.
• The settlement document, if one is reached, and the payment receipt.

In court proceedings these documents are submitted under the procedure and evidence rules, and the court may appoint an engineering or technical expert to inspect the damage, assess repair cost and say whether the damage came from the incident or existed beforehand. The expert's report is often the foundation for the figure the court awards.

Proof of damage and assessing compensation

Proving the damage is half the case. A court will not award compensation for damage that was not proved, nor more than was proved. In children's cases proof looks simple because the damage is physical, but the difficulty is connecting the damage to the incident and excluding the possibility that it was already there. So the owner should, if possible, document the condition of the property before the incident (earlier photographs, a purchase invoice, a maintenance record) as well as immediately after it.

Because the incident is a physical event, the damage may be proved by all means of evidence: witnesses, presumptions, camera footage, statements and expert reports, without the need for a document that is required for legal transactions. This helps the owner where nothing was written down.

The judge assesses compensation by the direct loss suffered. That usually covers the actual loss (the cost of repair or of replacing what was destroyed) and loss of profit if it was a natural consequence of the incident and can be proved. It does not go beyond that, and it does not simply adopt the figure the owner asks for. The age and condition of the item before the damage are taken into account: someone who breaks an old device is not necessarily ordered to pay the price of a new one, and benefits the owner gains from replacement beyond what he lost are taken into account. Moral damage is rare in property cases and generally limited to exceptional circumstances, such as unusual sentimental value or deliberate intrusion on the owner's dignity, and is for the judge to assess. Our article on compensation and civil claims in Kuwait sets out the kinds of damage and general assessment methods, and civil liability for bodily injury offers a comparison where the damage is to a person rather than to property.

Friendly settlement

In most cases of damage by children, a friendly settlement is best for both sides. The owner is paid sooner, the parents avoid the cost of litigation, fees and hearings, and the relationship between neighbours or between a shop and its customers survives. We explain settlement and mediation techniques in friendly settlement, striking out and mediation in Kuwaiti disputes. For a settlement to be sound:

• Put it in writing, briefly describing the incident, the compensation or manner of repair, and the date for performance.
• State that the settlement is final and comprehensive for this damage and that the owner has no further claim over it once paid, while defining its limits so it does not cover damage that has not yet appeared.
• Make sure the person who signs has capacity. The child's signature alone is not enough: his father or legal guardian signs.
• Keep the payment receipt, or proof of repair signed by the owner.
• Agree who bears the repair cost and who chooses the contractor, to avoid a second argument about quality and price.

If the incident involves more than property, for example repeated behaviour, violence or bullying, the parents should also deal with it educationally and psychologically alongside the financial settlement. Paying does not address why the behaviour happened.

In a few situations one party gains from another's property without a lawful reason: a neighbour repairs a broken window and upgrades it beyond its earlier condition, or a parent pays more than the loss and wants the excess back. The rules on unjust enrichment may then help to return what exceeds the right, and we explained them in unjust enrichment in Kuwaiti civil law. They are not a basis for claiming compensation for the damage itself, but they help define what each side is entitled to.

Practical advice

For parents

• Supervise in proportion to age and temperament. A very small child among fragile things needs close accompaniment, and a few simple rules before entering shops or visiting homes help.
• Do not leave dangerous tools, car keys or expensive devices within a child's reach. That adds other liabilities to supervision liability.
• Teach the idea of ownership and respect for other people's belongings early, and give the child an age-appropriate share of responsibility in an educational way.
• Review your home insurance policies and what they cover in respect of third parties.
• If an incident happens, contact the owner promptly, apologise and offer to repair in good faith, and document it properly.
• Do not accept unlimited responsibility before you know the facts and the figure, and do not pay cash without a receipt.
• If a dispute arises, keep what shows you supervised: witnesses, recordings and messages.

For the injured owner

• Document the damage at once and ask for camera recordings before they are deleted.
• Stay calm. The incident was probably unintentional, and a friendly settlement gets you paid sooner.
• Do not exaggerate the damage or add improvements unrelated to the incident. Courts check, and exaggeration weakens your position.
• Get more than one quotation and keep invoices and proof of ownership.
• Address your demand in writing to the parents and whoever supervised the child at the time, giving a deadline and the amount.
• If you run a shop, display expensive goods out of children's reach. It protects you and strengthens your position in any dispute.
• Do not sign a waiver or release before compensation has been paid in full.

Three Hypothetical Cases

The following cases are hypothetical and illustrate the principles only. The outcome of any real dispute depends on its evidence and the court's assessment.

Case one: a neighbour's broken window

A small child is playing football with his siblings in front of the house while his mother checks on them from the window every so often. The ball hits the neighbour's window and the glass shatters. The neighbour claims from the mother, who answers that she was watching and could not stop a stray ball. The court looks at the child's age, the kind of game and the place. Was the game close to a vulnerable window with no warning? Could a child be expected to appreciate the risk? If the court finds that playing ball right beside a glass wall is a danger a reasonable person guards against, and the mother did not, negligence is likely. If she shows she was attentive and that the incident would have happened anyway, it may fall away. For a simple incident like this, the cost of refitting the glass is usually settled between neighbours without going to court.

Case two: a scratched car

A teenager with discernment walks past a parked car and drags a key along the door, in play or anger, and the home camera records it clearly. The fault here is the son's own: he has discernment and acted deliberately, so he can be pursued personally in his own property, and the father is also pursued as supervisor. The father's defence is harder because the act is plain. It is not enough to say he was absent. He would have to show that he brought up and supervised his son properly and that the incident could not reasonably have been prevented. The main damage is the cost of repainting, and perhaps some reduction in the car's value, so the owner needs a technical report. If the father pays, the episode is best used as an upbringing lesson, with the son bearing part of the consequence in an age-appropriate way. If the act raises any criminal question, that follows its own path, which we explained in the article on juvenile cases.

Case three: a device on display in a shop

A father is shopping with his young son in an electronics shop. While he is at the till paying for an item, the boy pulls a tablet off the edge of a display shelf and it falls and breaks. The shop asks for the price of the device. Several considerations meet here: the father was close but distracted by the payment, and the shop displayed an expensive item on a shelf edge within a child's reach, unsecured. The court may weigh both parties' fault and apportion responsibility, reducing compensation by the shop's share. It also matters whether the unit was a demonstration model or stock for sale, whether its value is the full retail price or that of a used display item, and whether warning signs were posted. Careful shopkeepers often prefer a quick settlement at cost price or with a discount to protect their relationship with customers.

Quick Comparison

• Child without discernment versus child with discernment: the first is not treated as having committed fault, so the claim is directed mainly at the supervisor. The second can be personally liable in his own property alongside the supervisor's liability.
• Father, mother or school: responsibility follows whoever had the child in their care when the act occurred, and passes temporarily to the school or carer while the child is in their charge.
• Presumed fault versus proved fault: for supervision, proving the incident and the capacity is enough and the burden of rebuttal passes to the defendant. In ordinary personal liability the claimant must prove the fault.
• Civil versus criminal responsibility: civil responsibility repairs financial loss under its own rules. Criminal responsibility concerns the juvenile's measures or punishment under the Juvenile Law. Neither replaces the other.
• Compensation versus unjust enrichment: compensation repairs damage caused by a wrongful act. Unjust enrichment returns what one person gained at another's expense without legal cause, and may surface in neighbouring situations.
• Friendly settlement versus a lawsuit: settlement is quicker, cheaper and kinder to relationships. A lawsuit is more binding but slower and costlier and needs evidence and expert work.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a young child liable for damaging someone else's property?

It depends on discernment. A child without discernment is not treated as having committed fault, so he is not liable as an adult is, although a judge may exceptionally order him to pay fair compensation if it cannot be obtained from his supervisor. A child with discernment can be personally liable in his own property. In both cases, the wider route remains the supervisor's liability.

Are parents always liable to compensate for what their child destroys?

Not always. Their liability rests on presumed fault in supervision, but the presumption can be rebutted. If they prove that they supervised in the usual way, or that the damage was bound to happen anyway, their obligation may fall away, and the court assesses this on the circumstances of each incident.

Who is responsible if the damage happens at school?

In principle supervision passes to the school during school hours, so its administration and supervisors may be answerable for damage a pupil causes to others while in its care, provided the conditions of liability are met. The court assesses whether the school failed in its duty of supervision. That does not mean the parents are automatically out of the picture in every case.

What if the father or mother was not there at the time?

Absence alone does not remove liability: a parent who leaves a child without adequate supervision is usually regarded as negligent. But if the child was in the custody of someone the parents trusted, such as a relative, a school or an activity supervisor, supervision may have passed to that person and the claim would be directed accordingly.

Does the position change if the child is a teenager?

As a matter of fact, yes. The older the child, the less close supervision is expected and the more his own responsibility grows, and it becomes easier in some cases for parents to show they supervised as usual, especially where there is no history suggesting a tendency to cause damage. It still depends on the judge's assessment and the circumstances.

What must the injured owner prove to succeed?

He must prove the damage to his property, that the child caused it, the defendant's capacity as supervisor, and the amount of the loss. After that the burden of disproving negligence passes to the defendant. Photographs, recordings, witnesses and repair reports are his strongest tools.

How is compensation assessed for broken glass or a scratched car?

It is assessed to repair the actual loss. That usually means a reasonable cost of repair or replacement, not the most expensive option, and possibly loss of profit, such as a shop closing during repairs, if proved and directly caused by the incident. The court relies on an expert's report and considers the age and condition of the item before the damage, so compensation does not become a way to renew an old item at someone else's expense.

Can the injured owner refuse repair and demand the value in cash?

The judge has discretion over how damage is made good, and it is usually done through money equal to the cost of repair or replacement. In a friendly settlement the parties can agree that the parents arrange the repair directly under the owner's supervision, or pay an agreed sum, which is easier and safer than arguing over how to carry it out.

Does insurance cover this kind of damage?

Some home insurance or personal liability policies may cover it, and others exclude it. It depends on the wording, the notification conditions and the exclusions. Parents should check their policies promptly and notify the insurer within the time the policy requires, before making any admission or payment.

Can the owner sue the child himself?

In principle yes, if the child has discernment and is liable, but a child does not conduct a lawsuit himself: his guardian or legal representative acts for him. Usually the claim is directed at the child, through his representative, and at the supervisor together, so that the owner's right is not lost.

Is my claim lost if I wait too long?

Compensation claims are subject to time limits that bar them once they pass, and we do not recommend waiting. Delay weakens the evidence, wipes recordings and complicates proof of the damage. Start documenting and demanding as soon as the incident happens, and consult a lawyer if the time is running short or is unclear.

Do the parents hurt their position by apologising and offering to repair?

A good-faith apology and offer to repair is proper behaviour and does not in itself amount to admitting negligence, but wording matters. It is better to make the offer within a friendly settlement that says it is not an admission of fault, and to put it in writing so it is not misunderstood later.

Is it different if a weapon or dangerous tool left by the father was involved?

Yes. Liability as keeper of a dangerous thing may be added to supervision liability, and the father's position becomes harder because he failed to secure something that demands special care. We explain those rules in our article on liability for things and animals.

Conclusion

A child damaging someone else's property looks like a small everyday matter, yet it shows how the Civil Code balances the injured owner's right to have his loss made good against the fact that a child is not judged like an adult. The owner's right does not disappear because the person who caused the damage is a child, because the law places presumed responsibility on whoever supervises him. Nor does that become collective punishment of the parents, because they may show that they supervised as they should have.

The practical rule is this: supervision proportionate to the child's age, temperament and surroundings protects the parents first of all, and early documentation of the damage protects the owner first of all. In most incidents, a written friendly settlement that records the damage and the sum is enough to close the matter, with no need for a lawsuit that consumes time and strains neighbourly relations.

If the case does reach court, the judge will ask three questions: who caused the damage and did he have discernment; who was supervising and did he perform that duty; and what is the actual value of the loss. Whoever answers those questions best with evidence, owner or parents, stands closest to a fair outcome. We advise each side not to rely on a personal reading of the situation, because the small details in these incidents are what tip the balance.

Legal Notice

This article offers general information on Kuwaiti law. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and the firm. The rules described may change through legislation and are applied by the courts to the facts of each case, so outcomes vary with the evidence and circumstances.

If your child damaged someone's property and a demand has been made against you, or if your property was damaged by a child and you want to recover your loss, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm studies the incident and the evidence, identifies who is responsible and whether supervision was exercised, negotiates a fair settlement, and files or defends the claim where necessary. Reach us through the contact page or book an appointment to discuss your case at the office.