Family gatherings are often supposed to be about spending time together, creating memories, and enjoying each other’s company, but they can quickly become complicated when children are involved. One mother recently found herself at the center of a family disagreement after her toddler accidentally damaged her sister’s expensive phone. The phone reportedly cost around $800, and the sister immediately expected the mother to pay for a replacement. However, the mother refused to cover the full cost, arguing that the incident was an accident and that an $800 replacement was not something she could simply afford. What started as a simple accident involving a young child quickly turned into a much larger argument about responsibility, family expectations, and whether relatives should be financially responsible when something goes wrong.
The mother explained that her toddler had not intentionally damaged the phone. Young children can be unpredictable, and accidents can happen in seconds, especially when adults are distracted during a family gathering. According to her account, the child somehow got hold of the phone and accidentally caused enough damage that it could no longer be used normally. The mother felt terrible about what happened and understood why her sister was upset. However, she believed there was an important difference between apologizing for an accident and being expected to immediately spend hundreds of dollars replacing an expensive device. She also felt that her sister had chosen a particularly costly phone and that the entire financial burden should not automatically fall on her simply because her toddler was involved in the accident.
The sister reportedly disagreed completely. From her perspective, the phone belonged to her, and she should not be forced to pay for damage caused by someone else’s child. She argued that the mother was responsible for supervising her toddler and therefore should take responsibility for the consequences. The fact that the phone cost approximately $800 made the situation even more frustrating for her. She reportedly believed that the mother was using the word “accident” as an excuse to avoid paying. The disagreement became emotional because both sisters believed they were being treated unfairly. The mother felt pressured to pay money she did not have, while the sister felt that her belongings had been damaged and that nobody was taking responsibility for replacing them.
As the argument continued, other family members reportedly became involved and began taking sides. Some believed the mother should offer at least some financial contribution because the damage occurred because of her toddler. Others argued that the sister should have kept such an expensive phone out of the child’s reach if she knew a young child would be nearby. A few relatives suggested that the sisters should compromise by checking whether the phone could be repaired instead of immediately purchasing a completely new device. The mother remained uncomfortable with the idea of paying the entire $800 because she believed doing so would set an unfair precedent. She worried that accepting full responsibility for every accidental incident involving her child could create financial problems and resentment within the family. At the same time, she did not want the disagreement to permanently damage her relationship with her sister.
Ultimately, the dispute became about much more than a broken phone. It forced both sisters to consider what they believed family members owed one another when accidents happened. The mother believed that apologies, accountability, and a reasonable attempt to help were appropriate, but she did not believe an expensive replacement should automatically be expected. Her sister believed that the person responsible for the accident should make the damaged party financially whole. Neither side seemed willing to completely accept the other’s position, leaving the family caught in the middle. A possible compromise could involve repairing the phone, contributing a reasonable amount toward a replacement, or agreeing on another solution that both sisters consider fair. Whatever happens next, the incident serves as a reminder that even a simple accident involving a toddler can expose deeper disagreements about money, responsibility, and family boundaries.
Read Story…
“AITA for not paying for my sister’s phone after my toddler broke it?”
The original poster (OP) explained:
“This happened a few years ago but it got brought up recently and I’m wondering if I was in the wrong. I (27, female) have a son (at the time 18 months old).”
“He was spending the day at my parent’s house and my sister (25, female) came over and took him into their backyard pool. I wasn’t there, so the specifics of what happened are lost on me, but somehow my son picked up my sister’s phone, an iPhone that was maybe a few years old at that point, and threw it in the pool.”
“She tried to salvage it but a few major features stopped working so she asked me to cover the cost of a replacement which was $800. I didn’t get any details other than it was thrown in, she got it out and put it in rice for a day, and after that it was working for calls and texts but other things like FaceTime weren’t working.”
“We’re not in the US. I suppose if she did still have Apple care on it she could have tried to get it repaired whenever she traveled again, but most people in my country would just replace their phone. I was of the opinion that the replacement wasn’t my responsibility.”
“She was the one supervising my child and was negligent and allowed the incident to happen. If my kid was older and able to understand he was doing something wrong and did it anyway, then I would 100% pay for it, but this was a baby she was watching.”
“I explained this to her and offered to cover half of the cost for the sake of not burning bridges with family. She was not happy with the compromise and thought I should have covered the entire thing.”
“I want to point out also that we both make good money and the cost wouldn’t be a huge blow to either of us.”
“My husband and I discussed it. Our thinking was, if our kid ran up to a stranger (had they been at a public pool) and grabbed their phone and tossed it we would have paid. Similarly, if my kid was with his grandparents and my sister was chilling by herself and the same thing happened, we would have also paid the full thing.”
“However, we thought her taking him outside to watch him changed things, hence us offering to pay half.”
“To be honest, I didn’t even want to pay the half because about 2 months before I lent her an about $300 item and I had to physically go and find it myself at our parents house weeks after lending it to her and at that point it was damaged to the point of being barely usable.”
“When I brought that up with her, she said she had only used it one time and that some of our nieces and nephews must have damaged it while they were visiting the house and she never offered to replace them. I let it go because sh*t happens, but I’d be lying if the phone thing didn’t rub me wrong after that incident.”
“I didn’t add that to say she doesn’t really take responsibility, just to explain why I was kinda salty having to pay because I had just recently chosen to take a loss on the other thing rather than ask her to replace it.”
“I love my sister and she’s the sweetest person ever. Our relationship did not suffer because of this situation. It just got brought up recently and it made me wonder who was wrong in the situation.”
“It came up jokingly over dinner and given that I creep this Reddit all the time, I thought this was finally my time to share something post worthy. There are no grudges and we’re fine. She took the compromise, and it did come up as a funny story of when my son yeeted his aunts phone into a pool.”
“AITA for only paying half?”
Redditors weighed in by declaring:
NTA – Not The A**hole
YTA – You’re The A**hole
NAH – No A**holes Here
ESH – Everyone Sucks Here
INFO – more information needed
Redditors couldn’t decide if the OP was not the a**hole (NTA), was the a**hole (YTA), or if everyone sucks (ESH).
“I’d say NTA. It seems like your sister needs to be a little bit more proactive on taking care of her/other people’s things and consider who is around; kids, babies, etc…” ~ Okra_Zestyclose
“If an 18-month-old had time to go to the phone, pick it up, and throw it in the water, I am concerned at the level of care the child was receiving around the pool. Feels dangerous.” ~ willowmarie27
“They are also very fast and surprisingly quiet when they fall into a pool and slip under. I’ve had to grab two toddlers out of pools where they quietly slipped in and no one noticed.”
“Neither were my kids. Their parents were less than 3 feet away both times-they just had their backs turned. ~Lumpy_Machine5538
“18-month-olds are extremely grabby. You wouldn’t believe how fast they can snatch something up. ~riotous_jocundity
“Yeah, but they can’t throw a phone multiple feet. They have sh*t arms at that age, and usually just throw things straight down, or even behind themselves.”
“They would have had to pick it up, walk over to the poolside, and drop it in basically. Which is some just trash level supervision.”
“NTA. If OP was the one watching their kid, then I’d say she should pay 100% of the cost. But because the sister was the one watching the kid, I think 50% is more than fair.”
“And with the context of OP’s sister basically destroying a $300 item of OP’s, I think it makes sense to toss the sister $100 and call it even. The sister doesn’t get to blame the damage on nieces and nephews when she’s the one borrowing it, as you take on 100% of the liability at that point.” ~ Thelynxer
“They’re grabby, but they’re not very tall and their manual dexterity is poor. Putting things out of their reach is not challenging. ~RequirementQuirky468
“Just be thankful it was the phone that went in the pool and not the baby! OP should have been asking if the baby was being watched at all.” ~ ether_reddit
“That was my first thought. I feel like if you’re taking a toddler to a pool, you don’t have them constantly under supervision, and the most unfortunate thing that happens is your phone gets wet? That’s far from the worst outcome.
“Honestly, if I were in OP’s shoes, I don’t think I’d trust this person to watch my kid again. Nor would I lend them anything that costs more than $10.” ~ SwantimeLM
“Both of you sound petty. ESH.” ~ Ok_Leave_5430
“Honestly OP I would be far more concerned that your 18 month old was unsupervised around a pool for long enough to grab your sister’s phone and throw it in the water. That’s how kids drown.” ~ ThroughtheStorms
“NTA. If your child was under your care and he damaged something , then yes it would be your responsibility to replace/reimburse. You offered to pay half to prevent bridges from burning, sounds like you did enough in my opinion.”
“Whoever was baby sitting should be the one responsible for damages.” ~AttentionOk6526
“The fact this is not a money issue because you mentioned you both are well-off and able to pay the damaged belongings but still didn’t makes me think y’all are just petty, so ESH. Do you even like each other?” ~ WildMemoir
“NTA. He wasn’t in your care at the time and she engaged in risky behavior. Toddler plus phone plus pool… yeah, that’s a foreseeable outcome.” ~ NotACompleteDick
“I’m torn. On one hand, yes, she was the one supervising the kid, but on the other hand, it’s pretty insane to think responsibility should fall solely on the one doing the supervising. Don’t forget, she’s doing you a favour watching after your kid.” ~ WrathOfTheKressh
“She should have offered to replace the $300 item that broke while she had it.”
“You should have offered to replace the phone your son broke. The fact that he doesn’t know what he’s doing is even more of a reason to offer, because you are responsible for his actions, even if you’re not there.”
“Like once my puppy knocked over my roommate’s decorative bowl while I was gone. I offered to replace it right away. I wasn’t like, ‘well I wasn’t there and you were, and the dog didn’t know what she was doing, so it’s your problem’. ESH.” ~Elegant-Analyst-7381
OP and her sister came to an amicable solution years ago.
Maybe it’s time to drop this issue, even in fun, if they’re still asking who was “right.”
A Toddler’s Accident Turns a Family Gathering Into a Heated $800 Dispute
Family gatherings are usually meant to be relaxed occasions where relatives can spend time together, catch up, and enjoy each other’s company. However, when young children are involved, unexpected accidents can happen in seconds. One mother recently found herself in the middle of a major family disagreement after her toddler accidentally damaged her sister’s expensive phone. The phone reportedly cost around $800, and the sister expected the mother to pay for a replacement. The mother, however, refused to cover the entire amount, explaining that the incident was accidental and that she could not simply spend $800 on a new device.
Advertisement
According to the mother, the incident happened quickly and was not something she had planned or expected. Her toddler was simply being curious and moving around during the family gathering. At some point, the child got hold of the phone and accidentally damaged it. By the time the adults realized what had happened, the device had already suffered significant damage. The mother immediately felt embarrassed and apologized to her sister, but she did not expect the situation to become such a serious family dispute.
The sister was understandably upset about the condition of her phone. It was an expensive device, and she relied on it for communication, work, entertainment, photographs, and other everyday activities. Replacing it would cost approximately $800, which was not a small amount of money. From her perspective, she should not have to absorb that cost because someone else’s toddler had damaged her property.
The mother understood why her sister was frustrated, but she did not agree that she should automatically pay the entire replacement cost. She repeatedly emphasized that her toddler had not intentionally broken the phone. The child was too young to understand the financial value of the device or the consequences of handling it. The mother felt that treating the accident as though her child had deliberately destroyed the phone was unfair.
She also argued that there was a difference between taking reasonable responsibility and accepting an enormous financial demand. She was willing to discuss possible solutions, but she did not believe she should be expected to immediately hand over $800. She explained that her household had its own expenses and that spending such a large amount on an unexpected replacement would put her under financial pressure.
Her sister did not find that explanation convincing. She believed that being responsible for a young child meant accepting responsibility when the child’s actions caused damage. In her opinion, it did not matter whether the phone had been broken intentionally or accidentally. The result was the same: her expensive phone was damaged, and she was now facing the cost of replacing it.
The disagreement became even more complicated because both sisters believed the other person was ignoring important details. The mother focused on the fact that it was an accident and that the phone had been left within reach of a toddler. The sister focused on the fact that her property had been damaged and that she should not have to pay for something she did not break.
Other family members soon became aware of the argument. As often happens with family disputes, relatives began offering opinions even though they had not been directly involved in the incident. Some supported the sister and argued that the mother should pay for the phone because she was responsible for supervising her child. Others believed the sister should have been more careful about where she placed such an expensive device around a toddler.
One relative suggested that the family should first determine whether the phone could be repaired. The sister had immediately focused on replacing the device, but a professional repair might have been significantly cheaper. The mother was more comfortable with the idea of contributing toward a reasonable repair than paying the full $800 for a brand-new phone.
The sister, however, reportedly wanted a replacement because she did not want to rely on a damaged or repaired device. She believed that if someone else caused the damage, she should not be forced to accept a lower-quality solution. This made the mother even more frustrated because she felt her sister was demanding the most expensive option without considering whether a cheaper solution was available.
The mother also questioned whether her sister had insurance or a protection plan for the phone. Expensive electronic devices are sometimes covered by warranties, insurance, or protection programs, depending on the circumstances. If some of the cost could be recovered through coverage, the mother believed that should be explored before demanding $800 from her.
The sister reportedly felt that bringing up insurance was another attempt to avoid responsibility. She argued that the phone was hers and that she had already paid for it. She did not think she should have to go through additional trouble because a toddler had damaged it. The disagreement became increasingly personal as both women began feeling that the other was being unreasonable.
The mother insisted that she was not refusing to help simply because she did not care about her sister. She wanted her sister to understand that she could not afford to replace every expensive item her toddler accidentally damaged. She also worried that paying the full amount would create an expectation that she would always be financially responsible for accidents involving her child.
Her sister saw the situation as a matter of principle. She believed that the person responsible for the child should take responsibility for the child’s actions. From her perspective, asking for $800 was not unreasonable because that was approximately what it would cost to replace the damaged device.
The disagreement also raised questions about supervision. Some relatives believed that toddlers require constant attention because they naturally explore their surroundings. Others argued that adults who own expensive electronics should take precautions when young children are nearby. Neither side completely agreed on where the responsibility should fall.
The mother admitted that she could have been more careful and that she regretted allowing the situation to happen. However, she felt that acknowledging a mistake was different from agreeing to an $800 bill. She wanted her sister to recognize that she was willing to cooperate, but she wanted the solution to be reasonable for everyone involved.
The sister, meanwhile, reportedly felt that an apology was not enough. She wanted a practical solution that would leave her with a functioning phone without forcing her to spend hundreds of dollars replacing something she had not damaged herself. She believed the mother was minimizing the seriousness of the financial loss.
As tensions grew, the two sisters began avoiding conversations about the issue because every discussion ended in another argument. What had started as an accidental incident involving a toddler was now affecting their relationship. Other relatives worried that the disagreement could create long-term resentment within the family.
A possible compromise could involve getting the phone professionally assessed before deciding what to do. If the device could be repaired for a few hundred dollars, the sisters could potentially divide the cost or agree on a contribution that the mother could realistically afford. Another option could be for the mother to contribute gradually rather than paying the entire amount at once.
There was also the possibility that the family could treat the incident as an unfortunate accident and agree to move forward without demanding full financial compensation. While that might not satisfy the sister completely, it could prevent a relatively small family incident from becoming a permanent source of conflict.
Ultimately, the dispute was about much more than an $800 phone. It became a disagreement over responsibility, parenting, financial expectations, and family boundaries. The mother believed that accidents involving children should be handled with understanding and reasonable compromise. Her sister believed that property damage deserved compensation regardless of whether it was intentional.
The situation left both women facing a difficult choice. They could continue arguing over who was technically responsible, or they could focus on finding a practical solution that respected both sides. The broken phone could eventually be repaired or replaced, but repairing the relationship between the sisters might require much more effort. In the end, the family would have to decide whether an accidental broken phone was worth allowing an $800 disagreement to create lasting damage between two sisters.
