School Prank Costs Parents 50K

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I was thinking my school had cages over the sprinklers and that was back in the 70's, I suspect it was to deter kids hanging the class victim off them, as to the cost, there's a hell of a lot of tech gear in classes these days.

Not nearly as much tech gear as I had in my office... The gear in the area we were moving ran in $3 million range.

I guess not knowing the size or the area, what was in the area and how long the water ran for makes judging the price difficult.

[doctajones428]

I never thought in a million years a padlock would set off all the sprinklers, and I'm sure neither did the kid. Yes it was stupid but I really doubt he was trying to set them off. 50k sounds like way too much.

It's not like he purposely chucked a can of paint on the gym floor like some kid did here

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by nik-

What's the difference between that and paying for insurance when you never get in accidents?

This is society and there's a communal safety net.

The story leaves out a lot of details, but it seems more likely to me that the building is insured and these damages are above and beyond the coverage, or related to deductible charge backs.

Your comparison would be more like a 14 year old did something stupid that destroyed 5 cars in a parking lot, and the insurance on those cars wouldn't cover all of the damages since it was caused by negligent actions.

No one wants to see family crippled by the payment or the punishment to be beyond the crime, but if there is a cost to the damages that is beyond what insurance will cover; who else is supposed to be held accountable for that cost?

[Stealth22]

More detailed news story: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/boy-s-s...bill-1.2179676

Supreme Court Judgement: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...15BCSC0011.htm

The kid broke the heat sensor, which set the sprinkler off. Ergo, he's responsible. Plain and simple.

What are people going to say next? That the kid who owned the padlock was responsible because he didn't try and grab his lock back? Or because he dared the kid to do it?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

More detailed news story: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/boy-s-s...bill-1.2179676

Supreme Court Judgement: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...15BCSC0011.htm

The kid broke the heat sensor, which set the sprinkler off. Ergo, he's responsible. Plain and simple.

What are people going to say next? That the kid who owned the padlock was responsible because he didn't try and grab his lock back? Or because he dared the kid to do it?

Well reading the judgment that kid is an idiot. His audience tried to convince him and he just wouldn't listen. I mean if he had no idea and it was unforseen then that' one thing, but this kid knew and just didn't care.

[ricosuave]

Thanks Stealth22, great read, especially the court judgement document.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by speede5

Just out of curiosity how many of you guys have teenagers at home?

I do, but they're not mine, and I made sure the chains didn't reach as far as the sprinkler system or alarms.

[troutman]

Since this happened in a "school" does that mean the parents can't raise the Parental Liability Act?

[robaur]

Do the parents need to get an insurance policy for their kids now??

How in the hell does someone afford to pay $50,000? That's 2x a university education at the UofC.

[taco.vidal]

I bet the kid could have broke into the school in the evening, lit it on fire, and would have received a slap on the wrist from the criminal system and I doubt the school would have sued the parents.
Can the parents sue the kid now?
Should put the parents in jail and rule the kid mentally challenged.

[speede5]

You know, I do understand the courts view that the kid is responsible, and that responsibility passes to the parents since he's a minor, and with this being such an excessive amount it seems super unfair. Most of us would just pay the price of a window or some other minor item and just make our kids pay it off, and life would go on.

I think I'm more upset at the hard stance so many have that 'hell ya the idiot parents should pay!' This is all over facebook and it just makes me sick.

We know nothing of the parents, like I said earlier I know lots of parents who are trying really hard and you just can't control kids. I think most people can find some point in their life where they did something that was 1 degree away from tragedy. And I have no doubt most of the pitchfork crowd have no idea how close some of their perfect (read lucky) kids have been to similar circumstances.

I just watched a youth steal a car, crash into another, and drive right through the front window of a restaurant. Around 100 grand in damage. This kids parents have no control over this kid, she is doing what she wants to do. In and out of juvie, so what now? Do the parents have to pay? SGI will be putting a lien on her for life. As it should be. But to bankrupt or hold a lynch mob for caring parents? So wrong.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Locke

Granted, and I understand all that, but someone has to pay for it. If its insurance then everyone pays due to increases in premiums. If its the school then everyone pays in taxes and allocations in funds.

$50K is excessive and unfair. Sometimes life kicks you in the balls.

If the kid set the sprinklers off on purpose to be a ####head I'd probably agree. But he was missing around with his buddies and accidentally did it. If he was in his twenties and accidentally did that then yeah absolutely fine him. But it's easy to forget the kids age. We all did stupid #### when we were his age.

Im far from a bleeding heart liberal but I hardly see this as a good reason to #### over the parents retirement, or college fund, or whatever.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by btimbit

If the kid set the sprinklers off on purpose to be a ####head I'd probably agree. But he was missing around with his buddies and accidentally did it. If he was in his twenties and accidentally did that then yeah absolutely fine him. But it's easy to forget the kids age. We all did stupid #### when we were his age.

Im far from a bleeding heart liberal but I hardly see this as a good reason to #### over the parents retirement, or college fund, or whatever.

Ya I was defending that side...until I read the court documents above. Hate to say it, but that kid knew what was going on. I still have a bit of an issue with the parents being on the hook, and I wonder about that side, but at the same time that kid knew and was told by his audience that he should stop. He didn't. It also says in the judgment that he knew how the sprinklers worked, basically. There really isn't a defence here. I do think that the sprinklers should've have had a cage or something, but even so, the kid knew and was advised against it and was just being a jerk.

I feel bad for the parents. If that was my son he would be working like a dog to pay that back with interest.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ya I was defending that side...until I read the court documents above. Hate to say it, but that kid knew what was going on. I still have a bit of an issue with the parents being on the hook, and I wonder about that side, but at the same time that kid knew and was told by his audience that he should stop. He didn't. It also says in the judgment that he knew how the sprinklers worked, basically. There really isn't a defence here. I do think that the sprinklers should've have had a cage or something, but even so, the kid knew and was advised against it and was just being a jerk.

I feel bad for the parents. If that was my son he would be working like a dog to pay that back with interest.

I agree. After reading those documents the parents being on the hook for the cash makes total sense.

My attitude towards it prior to that information was probably a little harsh, but its an odd situation.

Knowing that the little basterd did it on purpose with full knowledge of his actions changes the game a little.

I feel bad for the parents though. Thats a tough hit to take.

[GGG]

I don't like the interpretation of intentional act in the judgement as they leave it broad as you intended to do the action that caused the damage rather than the more narrow reason of intended to cause the damage.

I do agree with the courts that he met the negligent part.

I think the school had an opportunity to intervene when he had locked the lock to the door and was caught so I think the school at that point shares some responsiblity. I disagree with the judgement here.

I think to fix the legislation they should add a cap to parental liability for non criminal acts. Say 5000 dollars.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think to fix the legislation they should add a cap to parental liability for non criminal acts. Say 5000 dollars.

So who pays for the damages then? What is damages were even higher, say $250,000?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So who pays for the damages then? What is damages were even higher, say $250,000?

Insurance company and therefore the general public would pay beyond that.

I believe the school act is unique already in its ability to transfer liability to the parents. I don't think (someone can confirm) if your kid keys the neighbours car the parents are liable for the act.

If this is the case placing limitations in the act for the value of the liability transfer seems reasonable.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GGG

Insurance company and therefore the general public would pay beyond that.

I believe the school act is unique already in its ability to transfer liability to the parents. I don't think (someone can confirm) if your kid keys the neighbours car the parents are liable for the act.

If this is the case placing limitations in the act for the value of the liability transfer seems reasonable.

What is the insurance doesn't cover it? Many insurance policies won't cover damages caused by negligence and it's therefore either the school eating the full cost or the person responsible for the damage.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What is the insurance doesn't cover it? Many insurance policies won't cover damages caused by negligence and it's therefore either the school eating the full cost or the person responsible for the damage.

The schools insurance wouldn't cover the negligence of the policy owner. They pay out the policy owner and pursue the party responsible to the extent of the law.

If the school was negligent then they should pay, if the student was negligent how would that affect the schools policy. And if this could occur the school should purchase better insurance

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

What is the insurance doesn't cover it? Many insurance policies won't cover damages caused by negligence and it's therefore either the school eating the full cost or the person responsible for the damage.

That's just not true. Insurance contracts cover negligence regularly. Car accidents, poor workmanship, basically tins of stuff where someone has failed in the duty of care.