Liability for fire started by guest's cigarette; also, was it negligence?

[justalayman]

Again, you can act as obtuse and obstructive as you wish. If we cannot rely on Oregon gov't agencies and legal organizations to interpret Oregon law as I referenced, we at least have you who claims to know interpretation of state law much better than they.

You are misinterpreting what they have said. It clearly states the tenant is liable for any guests for which they are responsible. Now all you have to do is show how the tenant becomes responsible for their guest/

this is the only part of that statute that comes close to suggesting what you are claiming:

(b) Deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the premises or knowingly permit any person to do so. [

Note, it requires knowingly allowing a person to act in some way that causes damage. That is who they are responsible for. If the OP did not knowingly permit the guest to act negligently, they are not responsible for them and as such, has no liability.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I do not have to show anything. I presented the law and I presented the clarification. If you feel the I and the state of Oregon are incorrect, go find the case law to support your current whining. You do not seem to have the intelligence to present anything except your opinion, which, added with a dollar might buy a cup of coffee.

 

[justalayman]

I do not have to show anything. I presented the law and I presented the clarification. If you feel the I and the state of Oregon are incorrect, go find the case law to support your current whining. You do not seem to have the intelligence to present anything except your opinion.

No, I presented the law. You specified the statute. You presented a unenforceable statement that a tenant is liable for parties they are responsible for without any clarification as to what is considered to be a party they are responsible for. I showed you in the statute why the OP would not be responsible for the guest, unless of course they were aware of the negligent action.

If you feel the I and the state of Oregon are incorrect,

"the I"? Is that your new title? I am the I. Anyway, I didn't say the state of Oregon was incorrect. I said you are incorrect. The state is correct. It is you who is misinterpreting their statement that is the problem.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You did not present squat. I went and looked up the law. All you did was piggy back my efforts and claim them as your own. I suggest you call up the following Oregon collaborative organizations and explain how you know their laws better than they do.

211 ----
American P=== Management
Campbell D==== R====, Inc.
Community Alliance of Tenants
Community Energy Project
Healthy Homes Coalition of Multnomah County
Home Forward
Josiah Hill III Clinic
Legal Aid Services of Oregon
Metro Multi-Family Association
Multnomah County Health Department
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon Law Center
Oregon Public Health Division
Portland Bureau of Development Services
Portland Housing Bureau

 

[justalayman]

OHRoadwarrior;3216831]You did not present squat. I went and looked up the law.

yep, and posted the code number. I presented the actual law.

All you did was piggy back my efforts and claim them as your own.

I gave you credit for identifying the applicable law.

I suggest you call up the following Oregon collaborative organizations and explain how you know their laws better than they do.

I'll tell you what; I'll let you feel like a really big person by letting you call of them and ask whatever you want to ask. That way you can come back here and give me a contact name and their statement on the issue. If you leave it up to me, for all you know I won't call anybody but simply come back here and tell you I did and tell you they all said you are wrong. I have no doubt they will say you are wrong but you wouldn't believe me if I did call them and get it directly from them/


by they way, not one of the entities you have listed has the authority to determine the answer to the question. Only a court can make such a clarification. Feel free to post some case law supporting your position, if you can find it.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I got a scary letter the other day from my landlord's insurance company, stating that their investigation so far indicates I may be liable due to negligence. They want to talk to me before they conclude the investigation.

I strongly suggest you speak with an attorney before speaking with the landlord's insurance company.

As you can see if you've read this thread to this point, there is some disagreement as to your liability for the negligence of your guest. While I do not agree that the statute in question assigns you liability in this instance, I can see where it can be argued that one should not be permitted to disclaim all damage to the landlords property (like a broken window) by simply stating "Someone else did it". This is somewhat more complicated.

Rather than simply fork over $200,000, you would be much better served by seeking counsel.

 

[single317dad]

(b) Deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the premises or knowingly permit any person to do so.

I'd argue that OP likely knowingly permitted the guest to go smoke on the back porch. It follows logically that OP knowingly permitted the guest to extinguish the cigarette. Did OP provide a proper receptacle for that purpose? The fact that OP doesn't smoke suggests the answer may be 'no'. Did OP follow up on or supervise the activities he permitted the guest to perform in the rental unit he had agreed to be responsible for? The fact that the dwelling burnt down suggests the answer may be 'no'.

An insurance company is on the hook for $200k here. OP needs a lawyer before he attends this 'meeting', which may progress to a deposition soon.

 

[tranquility]

I'd argue that OP likely knowingly permitted the guest to go smoke on the back porch. It follows logically that OP knowingly permitted the guest to extinguish the cigarette. Did OP provide a proper receptacle for that purpose? The fact that OP doesn't smoke suggests the answer may be 'no'. Did OP follow up on or supervise the activities he permitted the guest to perform in the rental unit he had agreed to be responsible for? The fact that the dwelling burnt down suggests the answer may be 'no'.

An insurance company is on the hook for $200k here. OP needs a lawyer before he attends this 'meeting', which may progress to a deposition soon.

A tenant is not strictly liable for the actions of their guests, negligent or intentional, as a matter of law. There may very well be a duty based on contract under the lease. There there might be a duty of adequate supervision. Even under contract, the tenant is not a guarantor of all the guest does.

Since a cigarette can be extinguished adequately and completely using many methods, there is no legal duty to provide a "proper receptacle" in a private residence. The knowing requirement would need the tenant to actually see the guest put out the cigarette in the plant pot or tell him to do so. Grown ups do not have a legal duty under the law to supervise or follow up on the normal behavior of their guests. There MAY be such a duty under contract. There, the specific facts would need to be known.

It is a logical fallacy to argue the premise from the antecedent. This one is called affirming the consequent.
1. If A then B.
2. B
3. Therefore A
That is an example of a formal or deductive fallacy. The only place such things have in law have to do with res ipsa loquiter which is not implicated here. Even with that legal theory, there are other elements required that would indicate B has no other possibilities of happening but for the negligence of the person who is in complete control of events.

I think anytime any serious person like an insurance company or lawyer is even mentioning the fact one might owe them a couple hundred thousand dollars, it is well worth the time and money to see an attorney. Only through an attorney would one want to talk with the insurance company. It would be very easy to admit things that should not be admitted in a conversation. Using a "mouthpiece" could not be used against the OP in the same way.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If A then B.

~B, therefore ~A.

It's been a while (ok, several decades), but I am fairly sure this was the Logic Formerly Known As "Modus Tollens".

Please deposit $0.05 in the e-cup for your Useless Fact of the Day™.

 

[tranquility]

If A then B.

~B, therefore ~A.

It's been a while (ok, several decades), but I am fairly sure this was the Logic Formerly Known As "Modus Tollens".

Please deposit $0.05 in the e-cup for your Useless Fact of the Day™.

I had a symbolic logic class mumblety-mumblety years ago and I agree with your proposition. I would never have recalled the formal name, however. Having looked it up, what is the difference between that and modus ponens?