School Prank Costs Parents 50K

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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."

Right, but the other kids around him also told him it was a bad idea, and the courts also noted that he knew what could happen. Sure he had no intention of it happening, but that doesn't absolve liability. If I know that driving my car into someone is a bad idea and don't mean to do it, I'm still liable for the damages.

I do struggle with the dollar amount though. A minor can't sign a contract and get you on the hook for say a $50k loan, but apparently they can commit you to pay $50 on their behalf in this manner? It sure looks like it. Like I have said before I feel bad for the parents because no matter your station in life, $50k is a big chunk of money to pay because your kid was/is an idiot.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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."

During the lunch break that day, Carson decided to play a prank on his friend by attaching his friend’s padlock to a sprinkler head. That prank led to the school’s entire sprinkler system being activated which caused extensive damage to the school.

The School District alleges that Carson was negligent and that his intentional act of interfering with the sprinkler head caused the damage. The Deans argue that Carson was not negligent and that the School Act does not impose liability unless the student intended to cause the damage, which was not the case here. Finally, the Deans argue that the School District was contributorily negligent and is at fault in not taking steps to prevent the damage.

Carson knew about sprinkler heads and what they were intended to do. He knew that if they were activated, water would spray from them.

The issue in this case is, in essence, whether the reference to “intentional act” means that the intentional act must be accompanied by an intention to cause damage, as argued by the Deans. It is clear enough that negligent acts are covered by the statutory provision.

The key to actionable negligence is not the intention of the individual but rather the breach of the duty of care that is owed by the reasonable person. Therefore, it is concerned entirely with conduct and not at all with intent.

He knew exactly what he was doing. Did he intend for the sprinklers to go off? Probably not, but it was a very likely outcome and happened as a result of his negligence.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

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

Do you mean would they cover the school damage or wondering how this would apply for sprinklers in homes?

If the latter:
I know for condos in BC, this sort of thing happens quite often (not sure if AB is the same).

A person tries to hang something on the sprinkler, or hit it while moving furniture and they go off causing water damage everywhere. Goes down to floors below and can damage dozens of units.

In those cases the building insurance would kick in, but the water damage deductible would be charged back to the owner of the unit since they caused the damage.
I've seen water deductibles anywhere from $5000 to $250,000 depending on the building and previous claims/issues they've had with water damage.
If your 14 year old caused the damage, you would still be responsible.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

He knew exactly what he was doing. Did he intend for the sprinklers to go off? Probably not, but it was a very likely outcome and happened as a result of his negligence.

No one has argued with that.

Bagor suggested he wasn't be deliberately destructive. In response, you said the court determined that he knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen - suggesting that he purposely set off the sprinkler. That wasn't the case.

The court determined that Carson's actions were intentional (i.e. he didn't accidentally hit the sprinkler) and that he should have had the foresight to know that messing around with the sprinkler could cause it to go off, but no one has accused him of deliberately trying to cause property damage.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No one has argued with that.

Bagor suggested he wasn't be deliberately destructive. In response, you said the court determined that he knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen - suggesting that he purposely set off the sprinkler. That wasn't the case.

The court determined that Carson's actions were intentional (i.e. he didn't accidentally hit the sprinkler) and that he should have had the foresight to know that messing around with the sprinkler could cause it to go off, but no one has accused him of deliberately trying to cause property damage.

Okay, but I also showed that they dont have to because proving that he negligently caused the property damage is enough.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, but I also showed that they dont have to because proving that he negligently caused the property damage is enough.

Who's talking or arguing against negligence or even for that matter talking about proving anything in a court of law?

All I was simply saying was that I found it a bit harsh given that the intent to damage was not there. That's it. A dumb move. Not a deliberately malicious move.

To use Slava's example from above regarding driving a car. The punishment is different for driving a car into someone through a stupid mistake or negligence as opposed to deliberately driving it into someone fully aware of the consequences. Yes you are responsible in both cases but the penalty differs in one case based on intent.

Originally Posted by Locke

He knew exactly what he was doing. Did he intend for the sprinklers to go off? Probably not, but it was a very likely outcome and happened as a result of his negligence.

You are contradicting yourself here. As has already been pointed out it is agreed upon that he did not know exactly what he was doing with reference to setting the sprinklers off.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Who's talking or arguing against negligence or even for that matter talking about proving anything in a court of law?

All I was simply saying was that I would it a bit harsh given that the intent to damage was not there. That's it.

Was the intent to damage not there? It's been shown that the kid knew what he was doing...just what exactly did he think was going to happen if you soaked everything in water? It'd just magically dry off and go away and be all the same as before?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Was the intent to damage not there? It's been shown that the kid knew what he was doing...just what exactly did he think was going to happen if you soaked everything in water? It'd just magically dry off and go away and be all the same as before?

No, the parties agreed that he knew he was tampering with a sprinkler (by trying to put a lock on it) but the intended consequence was to have his friend ask the janitor to remove the lock for him. There was no intention of setting off the sprinkler, although it was argued that he should have known that was a possibility.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Was the intent to damage not there? It's been shown that the kid knew what he was doing...just what exactly did he think was going to happen if you soaked everything in water? It'd just magically dry off and go away and be all the same as before?

I don't think intent really matters here, only the result.

Its like firing a warning shot that hits and kills someone.

You might not have the intention of killing someone yet you did and now your being dealt with based on that.

I didn't read the story closely, but did the school approach the parents before this went to court and explain to them the damage that their son did?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Was the intent to damage not there? It's been shown that the kid knew what he was doing...just what exactly did he think was going to happen if you soaked everything in water? It'd just magically dry off and go away and be all the same as before?

No, the intent to damage was not there.
That is agreed upon. He never intended to set off the sprinklers.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You might not have the intention of killing someone yet you did and now your being dealt with based on that.

And wouldn't that be the difference between manslaughter and murder?

You are dealt with differently based on intent.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And wouldn't that be the difference between manslaughter and murder?

You are dealt with differently based on intent.

True, but we're talking about damage to property vs death to people.
In this case, the damage has a monetary cost and the punishment was directly proportionate to that.

The judge also seemed to conclude that the boy should have reasonably known what may have happened from his actions.
Would likely have been a very different verdict if the result was completely unexpected from his actions and could not have reasonably been foreseeable to a 14 year old.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And wouldn't that be the difference between manslaughter and murder?

You are dealt with differently based on intent.

Maybe that is the difference in this case. He's being asked to cover (via his parents) the "outstanding amount" instead of the total damages.