School Prank Costs Parents 50K - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FlamesAddiction · 01-09-2015, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducay

Can someone explain the prank to me? How does putting a padlock on a sprinkler do anything?

Are these not heat-triggered heads like most?

I am thinking maybe it snapped off or something due to the weight from the lock. I saw that happen before (not from a padlock of course) and the water just pours out until someone shuts it off. If he did it and ran, and if the custodian couldn't get to the valves in time, I imagine there could have been a lot of flooding damage.

polak · 01-09-2015, 08:57 AM

50 K is excessive but I guess there's not much the school can do? At least in the courts. What are they going to do? Charge them for half of the damages?

Covering some of the costs pubically would set a bad precident for these types of situations going forward.

ricosuave · 01-09-2015, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btimbit

Absolutely should be a punishment but 50k seems like way too much. Could be the families entire salary for the year for all we know

So who is going to pay for the repairs then?

troutman · 01-09-2015, 09:01 AM

Wouldn't the school have insurance for this kind of thing?

ken0042 · 01-09-2015, 09:03 AM

Shouldn't the school have insurance for this sort of thing? I think it's fair that the parents pay the school's deductible, however the full amount is excessive.

GP_Matt · 01-09-2015, 09:11 AM

I am pretty sure that the insurance company sued the parents in the schools name.

Isn't that how it normally works? The insurance pays out and then tries to recover the money.

undercoverbrother · 01-09-2015, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stampsx2

This serves as a good example to the other kids. Maybe some of them will think before doing dumb things next time. The parents should pay for the property damage weather intentional or not. If that kid came to your house and damaged property you'd expect the same.

But will it?

How many 14 yr olds are up on the news and court decisions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Wouldn't the school have insurance for this kind of thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Shouldn't the school have insurance for this sort of thing? I think it's fair that the parents pay the school's deductible, however the full amount is excessive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am pretty sure that the insurance company sued the parents in the schools name.

Isn't that how it normally works? The insurance pays out and then tries to recover the money.

I wonder if this is within the Board's SIR?

It looks like this portion of the Schools Act was referenced

Quote:

Liability for damage to property
10 If property of a board or a francophone education authority is destroyed, damaged, lost or converted by the intentional or negligent act of a student or a francophone student, that student and that student's parents are jointly and severally liable to the board or francophone education authority in respect of the act of that student.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAs...FE72A289920E5D

nfotiu · 01-09-2015, 09:34 AM

Most homeowners insurance or umbrella policies would probably cover this too right?

If he broke into the school after hours and did this, sure go after the parents. But if this happened during regular school hours, isn't the school somewhat responsible for the supervision of the kids during that time? If it is not intentional, and it was an isolated case for the kid, it is hard to see how going after the parents seems like the right thing to do.

Huntingwhale · 01-09-2015, 09:53 AM

Not excessive at all. Hopefully that little #### learns his lesson and doesn't do stupid stuff like this in the future.

longsuffering · 01-09-2015, 10:13 AM

I'm amazed at how many posters are willing to give the idiot kid a pass and have the taxpayers foot the bill.

Whether the consequences of the kid's actions were intended or not, he - and by default his parents - should bear the cost.

troutman · 01-09-2015, 10:15 AM

Children's Liability for Torts and Personal Injury

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResource...al-Injury.aspx

In the area of a parent's liability for the torts of their child, statutes are gradually teasing their way in. Very reluctant, traditionally, to interfere with what was perceived as the common law's sensible treatment of the liability of children for their torts, many jurisdictions are now changing that law by statute which, of course, where it conflicts with the common law, has precedence.

For example, the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba both have a Parental Responsibility Act.

http://www.calgarylawyers.ca/Practic...onsibility.htm

Although Alberta does not have legislation similar to Manitoba’s, parents can, in certain cases, still be held accountable for the actions of their children.

nik- · 01-09-2015, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I think it's more of a "be responsible for the consequences of your actions" sort of crowd. It was a 'funny joke' to him, but it caused nearly $50k worth of damage. It wasn't just swept away with a laugh, and now he's learned that there are consequences to stupid actions.

Consequences for his parents. My mom did a pretty good job raising me, but I still did stupid #### once in a while because I was a kid. It would be ridiculous if one of my moments of being a dumb kid cost her $50000. $50000 can destroy some families.

cDnStealth · 01-09-2015, 10:16 AM

Good. Little Johnny can go get himself a paper route to pay back his parents if it's such a big deal. Next time maybe he'll think twice before doing something stupid.

psicodude · 01-09-2015, 10:17 AM

Why is this the parents fault? He was at school, completely out of their control. Wouldn't the parents have to be found negligent before a judgement could be entered against them? How can they be negligent if they aren't even in the building?

This is exactly why schools have good insurance. Completely ridiculous.

Slava · 01-09-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psicodude

Why is this the parents fault? He was at school, completely out of their control. Wouldn't the parents have to be found negligent before a judgement could be entered against them? How can they be negligent if they aren't even in the building?

This is exactly why schools have good insurance. Completely ridiculous.

I totally agree. If the suggestion is that the parents are liable then how does the school itself and the staff on time find themselves absolved of any liability? Surely (assuming this was during normal school hours) he was under their supervision at the time? If I was the parents here I would press for this to be covered under my insurance for the fact that they would fight tooth and nail to make sure they didn't have to pay out.

You Need a Thneed · 01-09-2015, 10:28 AM

I'd like to know how attaching a padlock to one sprinkler set off other sprinklers. It shouldn't be possible.

It's more likely, from the little bit of information we have as presented, that the other sprinklers were faulty in some way. The boy's family wouldn't be responsible for that.

Sure, what the boy is stupid, but it's nowhere near $50,000 fine stupid.

FlamesAddiction · 01-09-2015, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'd like to know how attaching a padlock to one sprinkler set off other sprinklers. It shouldn't be possible.

It's more likely, from the little bit of information we have as presented, that the other sprinklers were faulty in some way. The boy's family wouldn't be responsible for that.

Sure, what the boy is stupid, but it's nowhere near $50,000 fine stupid.

It's possible.

Some of them have delicate pieces of glass that when they break, it sets off the whole sprinkler system. It is designed to break from heat during a fire, but it can break from applying pressure as well.

I am just guessing, but I bet that is what happened.

undercoverbrother · 01-09-2015, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

I totally agree. If the suggestion is that the parents are liable then how does the school itself and the staff on time find themselves absolved of any liability? Surely (assuming this was during normal school hours) he was under their supervision at the time? If I was the parents here I would press for this to be covered under my insurance for the fact that they would fight tooth and nail to make sure they didn't have to pay out.

This happened approx 2 yrs ago, it takes time to get to trail.

I reckon that there was attempted involvement of the parents insurance. I can't see their lawyer missing that angle.

Slava · 01-09-2015, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This happened approx 2 yrs ago, it takes time to get to trail.

I reckon that there was attempted involvement of the parents insurance. I can't see their lawyer missing that angle.

There's always time for an appeal.

undercoverbrother · 01-09-2015, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

There's always time for an appeal.

Agreed, but I get the feeling the parents insurance angle is dead.

As this is set out in the Schools Act, I think they have an up hill battle (not saying it isn't worth fighting).

Will also say, that it is hard to really comment/discuss the case with the limited information that is availible.