• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Property Damages Liability

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

kolio

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Person A (me) hands temporary possession of an Iphone 5 (700$) for a group photo to person B and person B drops it the phone while attempting to take the photo and breaks it.

Is person B liable for the repair damages or is the owner Person A liable?
Other info:
Both person A and B had a few beers.
There were 4 witnesses there but all had a few beers.
This happened in a parking lot outdoors.
 


tranquility

Senior Member
No one knows. While any competent law student can give the issues, what the fact finder determines the facts to be will rule. Sue. See what happens.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Person A (me) hands temporary possession of an Iphone 5 (700$) for a group photo to person B and person B drops it the phone while attempting to take the photo and breaks it.

Is person B liable for the repair damages or is the owner Person A liable?
Other info:
Both person A and B had a few beers.
There were 4 witnesses there but all had a few beers.
This happened in a parking lot outdoors.
So...you were drunk and handed your very expensive phone to another drunk person to take a picture? The other drunk person then dropped your phone and it ended up broken? In my opinion, that's your problem. You used bad judgement.
 

kolio

Junior Member
So...you were drunk and handed your very expensive phone to another drunk person to take a picture? The other drunk person then dropped your phone and it ended up broken? In my opinion, that's your problem. You used bad judgement.
Yes but by your logic If I loan my car while I drunk to another person who is also drunk, I am liable if he gets into a car crash or runs someone over..... No I know for a fact whether you are intoxicated or not you are still accountable for what you do . Did I use poor judgement can be correct, am I liable for damages ensured by another person to my property I don't so. But that is why I am here.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
The drunk you gave it too, was too drunk to enter into a legal responsibility contract, as they were impaired. You were also. I suggest you sue yourself for being irresponsible.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Yes but by your logic If I loan my car while I drunk to another person who is also drunk, I am liable if he gets into a car crash or runs someone over..... No I know for a fact whether you are intoxicated or not you are still accountable for what you do . Did I use poor judgement can be correct, am I liable for damages ensured by another person to my property I don't so. But that is why I am here.
RE the bolded...yes, as a matter of fact, you ARE liable in that scenario. BOTH of you are liable.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Yes but by your logic If I loan my car while I drunk to another person who is also drunk, I am liable if he gets into a car crash or runs someone over..... No I know for a fact whether you are intoxicated or not you are still accountable for what you do . Did I use poor judgement can be correct, am I liable for damages ensured by another person to my property I don't so. But that is why I am here.
If you are drunk and let another drunk person drive your car, you definitely can be held liable if the drunk person gets into a car crash or runs someone over. Google negligent entrustment. You can also be charged criminally. Hence, you have just proven LD correct.

ETA: Or what LD stated.
 

latigo

Senior Member
If you are drunk and let another drunk person drive your car, you definitely can be held liable if the drunk person gets into a car crash or runs someone over. Google negligent entrustment. You can also be charged criminally. Hence, you have just proven LD correct.

ETA: Or what LD stated.
Come off of it, please! It was an “Iphone” not a live hand grenade!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Come off of it, please! It was an “Iphone” not a live hand grenade!

I get that it was an Iphone. My point was in responding to the OP's assertion if she was drunk and let another drunk drive her car who wrecked her car or killed someone that she would not be at all liable. As for the Iphone ... drunks should be more careful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

latigo

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) California . . .
Listen!

If the clumsy jerk that dropped the Iphone is not man enough to admit fault and replace it then, if he is of age and you are so inclined, sue. You have nothing to lose but a few bucks for the filing and service fees and some of his friends.

Plus, your odds are favorable that he won’t even show. A large percentage never do.

But if he does show up and wants to tell the judge that he was too drunk to safely handled it and admit to the misdemeanor offense of being intoxicated in a public place (Cal Penal Code 647(f) so be it. But it won’t serve to excuse his apparent negligence.

If he wants to claim that you knew he was too intoxicated to safely manage the phone, let him try to prove it. Unless he has read some of the "tempest in a teapot", irrelevant comments in here about vicarious liability and imputed negligence, he wouldn't dream up such a lame defense.

The state of your own sobriety hasn't a bloody thing to do with the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dcatz

Senior Member
tranq – I think only the first and last posts (yours) should be considered relevant by the OP, and they leave the question open for reasons that are implied and questions left unanswered. Others jumped in only after there was reason to infer that there was basis to assume with certainty all too much (which they quickly did).

tranquility points outs that the issues are easy but, in this thread, nobody (including the OP) gets to the facts and now probably can’t entirely. Ergo, the first response is the best and only pertinent. The last is an effort to try again.

“Public intoxication” (drunkenness) is a creature of statute (PC §647(f)), but that was not legally established and likely could not be for putative plaintiff or defendant at this time. At best, “drunkenness” fuels an interesting hypothetical.

“Entrustment” (with all due respect to Ohiogal) is unlikely to have the importance implied under CA law, and is a concept with more relevance in a commercial setting. My personal opinion is that a gratuitous or constructive bailment (tranq’s term) at CC §1630 will find application in a CA court and it can be implied at law.

Of greatest importance to me is that nobody other than tranq (who I thought went to the subject by implication), raised the subject of negligence; the nature and consequences were just assumed. There are four types of negligence recognized by states. State law yields differing consequences. CA is one of five states that follow a pure comparative rule (see CC §1714 and Jury Instruction CACI 405). Unless and until tranq gets a response to his first and last post, my opinion is that no other response is relevant (with that caveat that includes this one).
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I agree with the agreement with me. (Who would have guessed I'd agree with someone who agrees?)

While CA tends to be a pure state in negligence (landlord, bailment, etc.), it still tends to find towards the common law in what the duty is.

We don't know what happened. We don't know the situation. We don't even know the standard as to what the court would find is the duty. (Well we generally do, but, don't really.) People are treating this as a strict liability issue. It's not. Life happens, the world spins on and one does not always get compensation for hurt. All those who have replied could give out the issues involved. Most could give a quick quote about what the law is in CA for each of the issues. But, this is a facts case. At the end of the day, the fact finder will weave the facts to the law to their satisfaction.

As has it has been, as has it will be.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Yes but by your logic If I loan my car while I drunk to another person who is also drunk, I am liable if he gets into a car crash or runs someone over.
Why yes, yes you would be liable as the owner of the car and for negligent entrustment in that situation.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top