School Prank Costs Parents 50K

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

The School Act is great, but it doesn't determine liability and that's for sure the angle I would argue. Then its the shotgun approach where you're naming the sprinkler company, school, school board etc. Frankly, there is no way I would just roll over and pay $50k without first trying everything to avoid it in this situation (which we know very little about and are basically assuming everything!)

[speede5]

I wouldn't be able to pay it, not without selling my house. Pretty drastic, pretty sure liability insurance would cover it but if it didn't they would have to spend a lot more time in court to get it.

I agre that parents have to own a degree of responsibility for their kids behavior, but I am hardly allowed to dicipline my kids these days without judgement from bleeding hearts. I have tried to teach my kids right from wrong and do things in my power to dicipline them. Bottom line kids make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't bankrupt a family.

I work at a youth centre and I see kids this age all the time doing whatever they want, and I see a lot of caring parents chasing those kids the best they can. At some point these debts need to fall solely on the offender.

This is just as bad as parents being sued for child support because their kid knocked someone up in highschool. You can't lock these kids up, how can you be expected to be on the hook for everything they do?

Sorry, rambling a bit.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

The School Act is great, but it doesn't determine liability and that's for sure the angle I would argue. Then its the shotgun approach where you're naming the sprinkler company, school, school board etc. Frankly, there is no way I would just roll over and pay $50k without first trying everything to avoid it in this situation (which we know very little about and are basically assuming everything!)

But the next set is the Supreme Court of Canada, no?


The decision came from a BC Supreme Court Justice.

[troutman]

I don't know what the School Act in BC says about this, but the BC Parental Liability Act has a $10,000 limit, and allows the parents to raise defences:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/sta...1-c-45/latest/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But the next set is the Supreme Court of Canada, no?


The decision came from a BC Supreme Court Justice.

I didn't read that. I guess when you said it was only two years I thought that there would be other avenues. Maybe they're screwed. It just seems ridiculous for a lot of reasons and you would hope that sanity and common-sense comes into things at some point.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

I didn't read that. I guess when you said it was only two years I thought that there would be other avenues. Maybe they're screwed. It just seems ridiculous for a lot of reasons and you would hope that sanity and common-sense comes into things at some point.

sadly this never comes into things at any point.

[polak]

Yeah after thinking about it, I agree with the posters saying that the kid was under the supervision of the school at the time and thus the school should be responsible. The parents had literally no control over the situation.

One thing to think about though is that I'm pretty sure in Canada 14 years old is the age at which children start being held accountable for their actions in court, correct? What I think would be ideal would be to charge him with some sort of criminal mischief and have the schools insurance foot the bill.

[puckedoff]

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?

We used to do this in our boys lockerroom in school.
The room had high ceilings see, like 10 ft or so, so once the padlock was attached to the cage protecting the sprinkler head, only the owner of the padlock could remove it.

So the owner of such locking device must pull up a bench and undo the lock, while remaining in a vulnerable position (arms up, so as to input the code).

At such time, school children would pelt the owner of the lock with objects or fists etc.

It was not a clever prank, but we were not clever children.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I didn't read that. I guess when you said it was only two years I thought that there would be other avenues. Maybe they're screwed. It just seems ridiculous for a lot of reasons and you would hope that sanity and common-sense comes into things at some point.

Frankly, I think making the kid pay for the damage he caused is the sane, common sense end to this. And since parents are generally responsible for the damage caused by their kids, the proper result came of this.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah after thinking about it, I agree with the posters saying that the kid was under the supervision of the school at the time and thus the school should be responsible. The parents had literally no control over the situation.

One thing to think about though is that I'm pretty sure in Canada 14 years old is the age at which children start being held accountable for their actions in court, correct? What I think would be ideal would be to charge him with some sort of criminal mischief and have the schools insurance foot the bill.

I agree with that. Some sort of Juvenile punishment. Give him 100 hours of community service or something.

Also, that $50,000 stinks of being the jacked up bills specially prepared for insurance companies. I remember looking at some of my bills sent to the insurance company for ServePro for some water damage in my house. Ridiculous items like $100/day rental for fans (that cost about $150 on Amazon).

[CaptainCrunch]

So asking the lawyers out there.

These are actuals being talked about, there are no extra damages here.

So does the judge really have any lattitude in terms of how much the amount is?

The kid did the prank, it cost the school $50,000 the judge found the parents and the kid to be responsible.

Can the judge award less then the actual damages?

[longsuffering]

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.

Seems like a giant leap. What information has been posted that suggests in any conceivable way that the other sprinklers were faulty?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Frankly, I think making the kid pay for the damage he caused is the sane, common sense end to this. And since parents are generally responsible for the damage caused by their kids, the proper result came of this.

They are? I thought that when kids commit criminal acts the parents aren't sued or forced to pay for damages? Can you sue the parents if they catch a minor who say breaks into your car and causes damages and steals things?

[rbochan]

Now the little angel needs to get his ass a job to pay for the damages.

[bc-chris]

i was talking with my wife (who is a teacher) about this and she was thrilled with the judge's decision. as a teacher her hands are pretty much completely tied when it comes to disciplining a student - that's the parent's job.

she reminded me of an incident that happened a few years ago in her classroom. a number of students (grade 7) started damaging a bunch of desks in the classroom. she caught a couple of the culprits red-handed and in a matter of minutes had them name all of their accomplices.

my wife asked the kids 'what should we do about this?' and the one kid piped up 'well i guess we'll get a detention now'. my wife replied with, 'you bet you're getting a detention, but that doesn't change the fact that you've damaged a bunch of school property that now needs to get repaired before it can be used by other students. so here's what we're going to do..... you're going to write a letter to your parents explaining what you did and how you damaged school property. you will also include in this letter how you intend on earning the money required to pay for the needed repairs.'

the result of this was a lineup of parents at my wife's classroom door. every single one of them came in to thank her for how she handled the situation and almost all of the parents also brought gifts to say thank you for holding their children responsible for their actions.

i realize the dollar value in my example is substantially less, but the principle is the same. kids need to held responsible for their actions

[Bill Bumface]

I wonder where this gets grey. For example, when I was in high school a kid was swinging a golf club indoors in a store room, just taking practice swings. He clipped a heat sensor I believe, and the fire department came. If he had hit a sprinkler, is it the same thing? He was likely violating some kind of school rule swinging the club, but he had even less malicious intent than trying to put his buddy's lock out of reach.

[polak]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

i was talking with my wife (who is a teacher) about this and she was thrilled with the judge's decision. as a teacher her hands are pretty much completely tied when it comes to disciplining a student - that's the parent's job.

she reminded me of an incident that happened a few years ago in her classroom. a number of students (grade 7) started damaging a bunch of desks in the classroom. she caught a couple of the culprits red-handed and in a matter of minutes had them name all of their accomplices.

my wife asked the kids 'what should we do about this?' and the one kid piped up 'well i guess we'll get a detention now'. my wife replied with, 'you bet you're getting a detention, but that doesn't change the fact that you've damaged a bunch of school property that now needs to get repaired before it can be used by other students. so here's what we're going to do..... you're going to write a letter to your parents explaining what you did and how you damaged school property. you will also include in this letter how you intend on earning the money required to pay for the needed repairs.'

the result of this was a lineup of parents at my wife's classroom door. every single one of them came in to thank her for how she handled the situation and almost all of the parents also brought gifts to say thank you for holding their children responsible for their actions.

i realize the dollar value in my example is substantially less, but the principle is the same. kids need to held responsible for their actions

Discipline is not the same thing as supervision.

The parents release their kids into the supervision of the school. It should be the schools responsibility to make sure those kids don't do anything stupid.

Like I said, I'm all for the kid getting criminally charged if that's possible but charging the parents for the schools lack of supervision is dumb.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by polak

It should be the schools responsibility to make sure those kids don't do anything stupid.

[polak]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Where's the confusion?

When you drop a kid off at school, you are releasing them into the supervision of the school, correct?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by polak

Where's the confusion?

When you drop a kid off at school, you are releasing them into the supervision of the school, correct?

The school is supervising the kids, but is not responsible for them. Kind of like if little Johnny went out and shoplifted a bunch of stuff on lunch break...the school isn't responsible for redress, the parents are. You can supervise someone without being responsible for their actions.