Tenant Caused kitchen fire

[Unitonika]

dumb

This is all very dumb.... some people try to mulit-task and forget that they're running an ELECTIRCAL item that could possibly MALFUNCTION and keep it running while they're AWAY from the house? Not very smart! The tenant should automatically understand her fault in this matter. The warning labels on most electrical items or even the manuals say do not use unless supervised- that means DON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE WHILE IT'S RUNNING! I feel sorry for you LL, hopefully the situation will be rectified and you will be re-imbursed. Otherwise, I would pursue the tenant legally. That's ridiculous!

 

[acmb05]

This is all very dumb.... some people try to mulit-task and forget that they're running an ELECTIRCAL item that could possibly MALFUNCTION and keep it running while they're AWAY from the house? Not very smart! The tenant should automatically understand her fault in this matter. The warning labels on most electrical items or even the manuals say do not use unless supervised- that means DON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE WHILE IT'S RUNNING! I feel sorry for you LL, hopefully the situation will be rectified and you will be re-imbursed. Otherwise, I would pursue the tenant legally. That's ridiculous!

Which is why some one asked if the manuals were given to the tenant. You see some people will put the blame on anyone but themselves. Take the lady I was talking about. She goes thru a drivethru gets a coffee, takes the lid off and puts it between her legs while driving. Coffee spills and she sues and WINS. Why? McDonalds did not tell her that the coffee may be hot and could burn her.

Tenant could easily say landlord did not tell her that leaving things on top of the stove while self cleaning could cause a fire. Sympathetic judge and all of a sudden it is landlords fault.

 

[Alaska landlord]

The only problem is that the tenant took out the batteries out of the smoke detectors. In some leases that is reason enough to evict, and I bet that contributed to the damage to the apartment.

 

[ecmst12]

I wish people would stop bringing up the McDonalds coffee thing as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. That suit was perfectly justifed and the woman deserved the money that she got (award was reduced on appeal). McD had been warned over and over that the TEMPERATURE of their coffee was dangerously hot and they did nothing about it. The woman got burned so bad she needed skin grafts, and only wanted her medical bills paid, but the multi-billion-dollar corp McD didn't want to pay them, so she had no choice but to sue. She didn't win because there was no warning, she won because the company knew their coffee presented a danger but refused to reduce the serving temp or do anything else to prevent injuries. That's textbook negligence.

 

[FarmerJ]

McDs coffee allways was too damn hot, I stopped buying it years ago in the summer , It was pointless to ask them for ice to cool it down which only made it taste like crap, WINTER wasnt bad though , It only took a short time of driving for it to cool down when it was colder than zero out. Enjoy knowing that once you have sued this tenant using the fire marshalls report and you win the claim .This tenant will have a harder time in the future when some Landlords begin to learn of the details from the civil suit they will begin rejecting the tenants applications !

 

[Alaska landlord]

The moral of the story is; don't drink and drive.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I wish people would stop bringing up the McDonalds coffee thing as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. That suit was perfectly justifed and the woman deserved the money that she got (award was reduced on appeal). McD had been warned over and over that the TEMPERATURE of their coffee was dangerously hot and they did nothing about it. The woman got burned so bad she needed skin grafts, and only wanted her medical bills paid, but the multi-billion-dollar corp McD didn't want to pay them, so she had no choice but to sue. She didn't win because there was no warning, she won because the company knew their coffee presented a danger but refused to reduce the serving temp or do anything else to prevent injuries. That's textbook negligence.

THANK you, ecmst12, you saved me some typing.

I hate it when people bring up that McDonald's suit, too, because almost everyone who does gets the facts wrong. Mrs. Liebeck was not driving, and the car was not in motion when the coffee spilled. The driver had pulled into a parking spot so she could put in the cream and sugar. The coffee was served--per McDonald's requirement--at almost 200 degrees F. This was certainly not a case of a consumer being too stupid to understand that coffee is hot.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Maybe if she wouldn't put the coffee between her knees to open the lid she would not have been burned. But then again at 81 she may no longer be all too swift. Now we can all drink warm coffee.

 

[>Charlotte<]

And if McDonald's hadn't served their coffee at 190 degrees instead of the usual 140 she wouldn't have suffered third degree burns, required skin grafts, and spent days in the hospital. I've spilled hot coffee on myself and it never cost me more than some unladylike language and maybe an ice cube.

I remain convinced of my opinion, you remain convinced of yours. Thus it shall ever be.

 

[Alaska landlord]

I guess you're right. Mickey D should hand out instructions with each coffee cup.