Fire sprinkler damage

[n9lem]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia

Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
(Military family)

My 4 year old granddaughter set off the fire sprinkler in her bedroom by touching the red tube while climbing on the bunk bed. The apartment complex has sent numerous bills to my daughter for the repairs including the damage to the apartment below them. None of the invoices indicate any insurance reimbursement paid by the complex insurance company.
Are my daughter and son in law responsible for the entire repair costs caused by a four year old?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[justalayman]

Are my daughter and son in law responsible for the entire repair costs caused by a four year old?

well, either they are or the 4 yo is.

It doesn't matter if the complex insurance paid anything or not. If they did, then the insurance company would go after your daughter and SIL for the money anyway.



I would have to guess your daughter and SIL do not have liability insurance that would cover them in situations such as this.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia

Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
(Military family)

My 4 year old granddaughter set off the fire sprinkler in her bedroom by touching the red tube while climbing on the bunk bed. The apartment complex has sent numerous bills to my daughter for the repairs including the damage to the apartment below them. None of the invoices indicate any insurance reimbursement paid by the complex insurance company.
Are my daughter and son in law responsible for the entire repair costs caused by a four year old?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Why would you think that the apt complex should have to pay for those repairs or incur an insurance claim to pay for the damages if the granddaughter caused it?

Your son and daughter are absolutely responsible for the repair costs. If they placed her bunk bed in a spot where she could easily reach the sprinkler mechanism, then it is their fault that they did that and they must pay the price for their costly mistake.

As you probably already know, kids are very curious about such things, and your son and daughter's choices provided the opportunity for the granddaughter to start playing around. Additionally, one could argue that the granddaughter must have been poorly supervised for this to happen - after all, what responsible parent leaves a 4-year-old alone on a bunk bed?

The son and daughter are 100% responsible for these repair costs. They should be thanking their lucky stars that the granddaughter didn't fall off the bunk bed and injure herself instead. Time for them to stop trying to put it off on the apt complex and their insurance, and pay up.

 

[n9lem]

How about real legal advice

Well so far no one here really knows the actual legal answer. In every State there is an age limit that makes parents responsable for a childs actions. They are not denying it, but parents can't be everywhere at once. She doews a great job with the kids while Dad is out protecting you! Yes they do have renters insurance ... should help with something.

 

[Antigone*]

Well so far no one here really knows the actual legal answer. In every State there is an age limit that makes parents responsable for a childs actions. They are denying it, but parents can't be everywhere at once. She doews a great job with the kids while Dad is out protecting you!

Mom and dad are responsible for the actions of their child. They can certainly choose not to pay. When the owner (or their representative) sues them for the damages caused, then they can defend themselves, although, I don't see much of a defense.

 

[sandyclaus]

Well so far no one here really knows the actual legal answer. In every State there is an age limit that makes parents responsable for a childs actions. They are denying it, but parents can't be everywhere at once. She doews a great job with the kids while Dad is out protecting you!

This is real legally binding advice.

Regardless of that age limit you speak of, all parents are responsible for properly supervising their minor children to prevent such things from happening.

Sure, parents may not be able to be everywhere at once. But if they allow their children to get into these situations, either by poor planning, lack of proper supervision, or neglect, then they cannot turn around and try to blame someone else for the damage that occurs as a result.

Don't try to pull the "Dad is saving your a$$ by fighting for your freedom" card. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this situation. And I do believe that you are in denial about Mom as well, no matter what you say here. You seem to be missing the point here. Why would a 4-year-old child be left where they could so easily reach a sprinkler mechanism ON THE CEILING??? Why would this child be left UNSUPERVISED anywhere near or on a bunk bed from which they could easily reach this sprinkler mechanism??? These are the questions that will truly determine who is really at fault here for the damages from the sprinkler. (HINT: The apt complex isn't responsible for supervising your grandchild, so...)

 

[justalayman]

Well so far no one here really knows the actual legal answer. In every State there is an age limit that makes parents responsable for a childs actions. They are not denying it, but parents can't be everywhere at once. She doews a great job with the kids while Dad is out protecting you! Yes they do have renters insurance ... should help with something.

well, if you want to play that game.


the parents put the bed in such a placement the child could reach the sprinkler. The parents failed to properly supervise their child:

therefore, it was the parents negligence that cause the damage. Parents are liable for their own actions.

happy now?

 

[TheGeekess]

Well so far no one here really knows the actual legal answer. In every State there is an age limit that makes parents responsable for a childs actions. They are not denying it, but parents can't be everywhere at once. She doews a great job with the kids while Dad is out protecting you! Yes they do have renters insurance ... should help with something.

It's called the age of Majority. In some states, it's 18, others 19.

 

[justalayman]

It's called the age of Majority. In some states, it's 18, others 19.

actually, age has very little to do with it in most situations other than a parent is not liable once the child is an adult (although there are exceptions.) Parents are often not held liable for their children's acts unless willful or malicious, or had reason to know the child was predisposed to such actions and the parents failed to control their child.

In this situation, the child's acts were probably considered to be accidental which would generally excuse the parents from any vicarious liability. The child can be sued though and be held liable for the damages.

Now, the parents may have signed a lease where they did accept liability for any occupants or guests in their residence (good possibility they actually have). If so, we are back to the parents being liable but not because they are the parents.
In Virginia, for the parents to have vicarious liability, there must be willful or malicious intent. Even then, that parent's liability is limited to $2500.

 

[Who's Liable?]

actually, age has very little to do with it in most situations other than a parent is not liable once the child is an adult (although there are exceptions.) Parents are often not held liable for their children's acts unless willful or malicious, or had reason to know the child was predisposed to such actions and the parents failed to control their child.

In this situation, the child's acts were probably considered to be accidental which would generally excuse the parents from any vicarious liability. The child can be sued though and be held liable for the damages.

Now, the parents may have signed a lease where they did accept liability for any occupants or guests in their residence (good possibility they actually have). If so, we are back to the parents being liable but not because they are the parents.
In Virginia, for the parents to have vicarious liability, there must be willful or malicious intent. Even then, that parent's liability is limited to $2500.

X2...

Didn't anyone read the recent news where a judge ruled a 4 year old could be sued for negligence, even while being supervised?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=1