Laptop damaged: Who is at fault?

[WoWnotebook]

What is the name of your state? I reside in Oregon.

Just over a month ago I was on my notebook and my roommates and I decided to make a quick run to the store. In our moment of absence one of the other roommates quickly jumped on my computer and while he was on it his girlfriend came over and knocked over a glass of wine that was on the table beside my notebook. Today they told me that they had spoke with an attorney and that legally she is only liable for half the damage. I find this absurd and have to believe that she is fully at fault. They are holding strong to the idea that they are only going to pay half of whatever is eventually worked out. Any thoughts on this issue?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? I reside in Oregon.

Just over a month ago I was on my notebook and my roommates and I decided to make a quick run to the store. In our moment of absence one of the other roommates quickly jumped on my computer and while he was on it his girlfriend came over and knocked over a glass of wine that was on the table beside my notebook. Today they told me that they had spoke with an attorney and that legally she is only liable for half the damage. I find this absurd and have to believe that she is fully at fault. They are holding strong to the idea that they are only going to pay half of whatever is eventually worked out. Any thoughts on this issue?

rental insurance

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state? I reside in Oregon.

Just over a month ago I was on my notebook and my roommates and I decided to make a quick run to the store. In our moment of absence one of the other roommates quickly jumped on my computer and while he was on it his girlfriend came over and knocked over a glass of wine that was on the table beside my notebook. Today they told me that they had spoke with an attorney and that legally she is only liable for half the damage. I find this absurd and have to believe that she is fully at fault. They are holding strong to the idea that they are only going to pay half of whatever is eventually worked out. Any thoughts on this issue?

What was the justification for the "1/2 libility" stance? Not that an attorney told her that either, what is the legal justification??

 

[WoWnotebook]

well the warranty is out of date so there's no sort of insurance on it. If I understand your question correctly then the reason the attorney told her she was only 1/2 liable was because the liquid was not hers. I suppose this is my ultimate question as well.

 

[justalayman]

well the warranty is out of date so there's no sort of insurance on it. If I understand your question correctly then the reason the attorney told her she was only 1/2 liable was because the liquid was not hers. I suppose this is my ultimate question as well.

Belizebreeze's response was meant to infer that you should have and make a claim with you renters insurance. (at least that is my take. if I'm wrong I'm sure he will make a correction)

Well I see it like this. The girl spilled the drink, she is at fault. She is the one who was careless enough to not pay attention and spill the drink. It surely didn't spill itself.

Whose drink was it? I'm betting it was yours and that is why she is claiming you need to cover half of the repair. Oh well. If all else fails, let the judge in small claims court settle it. I think the judge will see it your way.

 

[WoWnotebook]

Thank you for you insight, I really do appreciate it. I actually just got off the phone with my roommates uncle who works with the DA in LA. Basically he said it involves the law of negligibility. This would indeed imply that regardless of whose wine it was (it was mine by the way) she is still at fault. It may be a bit different in oregon but that seems like a law that would be fairly concurrent with all states. I'm researching that now. Thanks again, I appreciate it.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Thank you for you insight, I really do appreciate it. I actually just got off the phone with my roommates uncle who works with the DA in LA. Basically he said it involves the law of negligibility. This would indeed imply that regardless of whose wine it was (it was mine by the way) she is still at fault. It may be a bit different in oregon but that seems like a law that would be fairly concurrent with all states. I'm researching that now. Thanks again, I appreciate it.

I also suggest you research the law of proximate liability.

 

[WoWnotebook]

Can someone give me a brief description of what the law of proximate liability declares. I've been trying to research a lot of stuff the last few days and have still come up short in my search for this one. Thanks

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Can someone give me a brief description of what the law of proximate liability declares. I've been trying to research a lot of stuff the last few days and have still come up short in my search for this one. Thanks

YOu were, by your own admission, 'on your computer' just prior to the incident.
You, by your own admission, left your computer in a common area without securing it before leaving.
You, by your own omission, did not 'deny' access to the computer to your roommate.
You, by your own admission, did not 'loan' the computer to your roommate or in any way create a 'bailment'.
your roommate's girlfriend, by your own admission (and omission) had an accident in which your computer was damaged.
You, by your own omission, have not proven 'intent' either malicious or otherwise.

This is promimate liability. It was up to you to secure your computer before leaving it in a common area where the likelihood of it being damaged by accident was greater than if you had secured it in your own room or otherwise. You have no intent to cause harm and you have no bailment in which another party assumes responsibility for the computer.

You are responsible for the damage.

 

[shell007]

BB: Believe it or not, a case very similar to this was on Judge Judy Tuesday May 9. Case #2

http://www.judgejudy.com/Episode/episode.asp?dt=5/9/2006

I believe the outcome of the case was exactly what you posted.

OP: feel free to take a look!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB: Believe it or not, a case very similar to this was on Judge Judy Tuesday May 9. Case #2

http://www.judgejudy.com/Episode/episode.asp?dt=5/9/2006

I believe the outcome of the case was exactly what you posted.

OP: feel free to take a look!

not exactly. The plaintiff 'loaned' the computer to her brother and his roommate. The computer was damaged by the roommate's girlfriend whom the plaintiff sued.

The case against the girlfriend was dismissed due to the fact that no bailment between the plaintiff and the girlfriend existed and the damage was caused by both the bailee's failure to exercise due care and 'accident' on the part of the girlfriend.

Therefore, the wrong party (ies) were being sued.

 

[shell007]

not exactly. The plaintiff 'loaned' the computer to her brother and his roommate. The computer was damaged by the roommate's girlfriend whom the plaintiff sued.

The case against the girlfriend was dismissed due to the fact that no bailment between the plaintiff and the girlfriend existed and the damage was caused by both the bailee's failure to exercise due care and 'accident' on the part of the girlfriend.

Therefore, the wrong party (ies) were being sued.

Anyway...I Like I said in my other post, these two cases sounded similar not exact. I just thought it was funny.

 

[justalayman]

BB, I accept my error. It doesn't truly make sense to me but I do understand your post.

What I don't understand is there appears to be many times where simple negligence on one party's part is enough to hold them liable for damages incurred. (many car accidents for example or the kid breaking a window with an errantly hit baseball (or maybe this one does fall under the "sh*t happens catagory)) It seems to make the claim "sh*t happens" to be an acceptable excuse. I don't understand why more things do not fall into that simplistic argument.

I could find really nothing of value with a google search of " proximate liability" that gives much explanation. Could you point the way to some pertinent info (preferably on the internet) to help relieve me of my ignorance??

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Proximate Cause

The element of proximate cause determines the scope of defendant’s liability.
Proximate cause introduces the concept of foreseeability into the analysis. While duty is concerned with foreseeable risk to others in the general sense, proximate cause raises the question whether defendant could foresee the risk which caused the accident that injured plaintiff

In the current situation, the girlfriend would have to have "Forseen" that a bottle would drop onto the laptop thereby injuring the Plaintiff, then having that knowledge, acted in such a manner as to ignore that knowledge.

And the plaintiff would have to prove the knowledge on the part of the defendant to a judge/jury. For example, if the defendant had partial paralysis in the hand that she was holding the bottle and had dropped a similarly situated bottle before, then she could be shown to have forseen that this would happen again.

However, in our current situation, 'there but for..." the poster leaving the laptop in an area open to common use, the laptop would not have been injured, even if the defendant had dropped 20 such bottles or a rugby game had transpired in the room.

the 'proximate' cause of the injury was the Plaintiff leaving the laptop in an area where injury could occur.

 

[BL]

I'm sure if you search FA there was a " simular " post where a drink was spilled on a laptop in a dorm room .