School Prank Costs Parents 50K

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Itse

It's just going to boost the bottom line of the insurance company.

Also; if kids could be stopped doing stupid stuff with dinner table stories, the world would be a very different place.

This could start a whole market for kid insurance.

[Deegee]

Kids do stupid things. It's clear that several posters here don't have kids when they feel justice is served by forcing an unexpected $50,000 on parents who likely cannot afford it.

It sure makes a lot of sense that the parents could have to sell their home or declare bankruptcy because of an act their child did.

A $50,000 bill would ruin me and I have no idea how I would handle that bill.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Kids do stupid things. It's clear that several posters here don't have kids when they feel justice is served by forcing an unexpected $50,000 on parents who likely cannot afford it.

It sure makes a lot of sense that the parents could have to sell their home or declare bankruptcy because of an act their child did.

A $50,000 bill would ruin me and I have no idea how I would handle that bill.

Everybody does stupid things, generally when we eff up we end up paying for it as well.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Kids do stupid things. It's clear that several posters here don't have kids when they feel justice is served by forcing an unexpected $50,000 on parents who likely cannot afford it.

It sure makes a lot of sense that the parents could have to sell their home or declare bankruptcy because of an act their child did.

A $50,000 bill would ruin me and I have no idea how I would handle that bill.

So who do you suppose foots the bill for this kids idiotic decision? I teach kids his age everyday and they are more than capable of realizing that their actions have consequences. Why do we all of a sudden want to absolve him of responsibility because this will hurt his family financially. This is the exact kind of reaction that breeds entitlement and kids with no sense of responsibility. I truly appreciate this judge finally taking a stand for what is right, and I hope it sets precedent for future stupid choices.

I am willing to bet if this kid had faced consequences in his life before this he may have thought before he acted. However, with a no fail policy and schools afraid of parents why would he bother to think he may actually face the results of his action. This is a cheap lesson if he learns from it considering the costs he could have had in life.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Kids do stupid things. It's clear that several posters here don't have kids when they feel justice is served by forcing an unexpected $50,000 on parents who likely cannot afford it.

It sure makes a lot of sense that the parents could have to sell their home or declare bankruptcy because of an act their child did.

A $50,000 bill would ruin me and I have no idea how I would handle that bill.

do you have a source for this or is this just an assumption?

either way, i still agree with the judge

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Kids do stupid things. It's clear that several posters here don't have kids when they feel justice is served by forcing an unexpected $50,000 on parents who likely cannot afford it.

It sure makes a lot of sense that the parents could have to sell their home or declare bankruptcy because of an act their child did.

A $50,000 bill would ruin me and I have no idea how I would handle that bill.

What if his family is extremely wealthy? Should the punishment be reflective of the family's wealth?

[speede5]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

So who do you suppose foots the bill for this kids idiotic decision? I teach kids his age everyday and they are more than capable of realizing that their actions have consequences. Why do we all of a sudden want to absolve him of responsibility because this will hurt his family financially. This is the exact kind of reaction that breeds entitlement and kids with no sense of responsibility. I truly appreciate this judge finally taking a stand for what is right, and I hope it sets precedent for future stupid choices.

I am willing to bet if this kid had faced consequences in his life before this he may have thought before he acted. However, with a no fail policy and schools afraid of parents why would he bother to think he may actually face the results of his action. This is a cheap lesson if he learns from it considering the costs he could have had in life.

I don't think anyone is absolving him of responsibility. I think he should be held responsible. How does hurting the parents do anything. How are the parents supposed to enforce this with the kid. Sure, all the tough guys on here can say they would make their kid pay it all back but that kid can tell the parents to eff off and there's nothing they can do about it. The court has just passed this debt on to the easier target. Why not nail the kid with community service?

The court decision has done exactly what you are saying, it has told the kid he's not responsible for his actions, someone else is.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by speede5

I don't think anyone is absolving him of responsibility. I think he should be held responsible. How does hurting the parents do anything. How are the parents supposed to enforce this with the kid. Sure, all the tough guys on here can say they would make their kid pay it all back but that kid can tell the parents to eff off and there's nothing they can do about it. The court has just passed this debt on to the easier target. Why not nail the kid with community service?

The court decision has done exactly what you are saying, it has told the kid he's not responsible for his actions, someone else is.

I disagree, the court is not responsible to ensure the child faces consequences. We as a society have chosen to protect our children from these direct legal consequences. In lieu of this we hope that the parents would, for lack of a better word, parent their children. This includes teaching them responsibility. The courts job is to figure out who is responsible for the damages and in this case the person is under 18. Therefore, the parents are responsible. If you can't handle taking responsibility for your child then don't have one. This is an increasingly frustrating trend when parents refuse to take ownership for their children's actions and are busy pointing fingers at schools, governments, the media, video games, and really anyone but themselves. I hear all the time from parents that they are "done" sorry when you procreate you are never "done."

[nfotiu]

Would homeowners insurance or umbrella policies cover this kind of thing? Anyone know?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

I disagree, the court is not responsible to ensure the child faces consequences. We as a society have chosen to protect our children from these direct legal consequences. In lieu of this we hope that the parents would, for lack of a better word, parent their children. This includes teaching them responsibility. The courts job is to figure out who is responsible for the damages and in this case the person is under 18. Therefore, the parents are responsible. If you can't handle taking responsibility for your child then don't have one. This is an increasingly frustrating trend when parents refuse to take ownership for their children's actions and are busy pointing fingers at schools, governments, the media, video games, and really anyone but themselves. I hear all the time from parents that they are "done" sorry when you procreate you are never "done."

In alberta if a kid keys a car is the parent liable for the consequences? I don't believe they are.

This case is only a case because of the school act which states that parenets are responsible for students damaging school property.

[burn_this_city]

It's a lot of money, but I struggle with the notion society should foot the bill for your ####ty kid.

[driveway]

We've decided as a society that the best way to instruct kids is for the society as a whole to provide for their education. It stands to reason that the society as a whole should also be held somewhat responsible for the actions of those kids.

I disagree with the idea of making parents monetarily responsible for the actions of their children. I think it reinforces the idea that children "belong" to parents, which I feel has long lasting negative consequences.

[chemgear]

Why are so many people hung up on the "is this teaching a lesson", "what kind of message does this send to parents or kids or public, etc." or "parent child relations in Canada" psychobabble?

Kid directly causes $50,000 in water damages. School district sues for the cost of those damages.

No extra penalty for something like "emotion distress" or sending a message with a punitive judgement. Hell, I don't even see that the kid got suspended.

Where else are the funds to repair the damage supposed to come from? Any "message" resulting from the judgement just seems like a side benefit.

[cracher]

Originally Posted by speede5

The court decision has done exactly what you are saying, it has told the kid he's not responsible for his actions, someone else is.

Unless the parent is a complete turd, I would think a $50k tab would motivate them to hold the child responsible.

As an example, I tore the wooden slats off garbage can housing in junior high. The school made my parents pay the $250 to have it fixed. That motivated my parents (both working back then, didn't have much time for the kids) to get on me hard. That summer, I had to pay back the entire sum by mowing neighborhood lawns (and I lived in an area with excessively large lawns) at a flat rate of $2. Have never destroyed a garbage can since.

I really believe that, as a parent, there is a contributory negligence if your kid screws up. There is no magic $50k threshold of responsibility with your kid.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by driveway

I think it reinforces the idea that children "belong" to parents, which I feel has long lasting negative consequences.

But don't they?


Untill they hit 18 they are minors.


Are you suggesting we should change the age at which one is on longer a minor?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It's a lot of money, but I struggle with the notion society should foot the bill for your ####ty kid.

I think thats pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell. Its a lot of money but it was conclusively the kid's fault and someone has to pay for the damages.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by speede5

I don't think anyone is absolving him of responsibility. I think he should be held responsible. How does hurting the parents do anything. How are the parents supposed to enforce this with the kid. Sure, all the tough guys on here can say they would make their kid pay it all back but that kid can tell the parents to eff off and there's nothing they can do about it. The court has just passed this debt on to the easier target. Why not nail the kid with community service?

The court decision has done exactly what you are saying, it has told the kid he's not responsible for his actions, someone else is.

I might be wrong, but to impose community service as a punishment, wouldn't they have to charge him with a crime?


The idea here isn't to punish anyone. It's just about who is responsible for paying for damages, and having the kid deliver Meals on Wheels for a couple of weeks (or whatever the community service is now fo 14 year olds), does not help pay for anything.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

I teach kids his age everyday and they are more than capable of realizing that their actions have consequences. Why do we all of a sudden want to absolve him of responsibility because this will hurt his family financially. This is the exact kind of reaction that breeds entitlement and kids with no sense of responsibility. I truly appreciate this judge finally taking a stand for what is right, and I hope it sets precedent for future stupid choices.

You make it sound as if he intentionally set out/chose to water damage the school.

What I am struggling with here is motive. Unless I am missing something he was playing a stupid prank with zero intent to damage property. Dumb he might be, but deliberately destructive, I don't buy it.

If he had intentionally set out to cause damage I would have no issues going after the parents but to potentially financially cripple the parents because he is a bit dumb is a tad excessive in my opinion.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You make it sound as if he intentionally set out to water damage the school.

What I am struggling with here is motive. Unless I am missing something he was playing a stupid prank with zero intent to damage property. Dumb he might be, but deliberately destructive, I don't buy it.

If he had intentionally set out to cause damage I would have no issues going after the parents but to potentially financially cripple the parents because he is a bit dumb is a tad excessive in my opinion.

The court determined that he knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

The court determined that he knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen.

No they didn't. In fact the very opposite.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...15BCSC0011.htm
"It is also agreed by the parties that Carson had no intention to activate the sprinkler head and that his sole intention was to lock the padlock to the metal ring surrounding the sprinkler head. Carson’s thinking at the time, to the extent that you can call it thinking, was that Ben would have to get help to unlock the padlock from the sprinkler head, likely by a school janitor using a ladder."