Suggestions on a possible small claim in Oregon

[Cheyeanne]

My fiance and I have been room mating with his coworker, their family and their dog. My fiance pays $130/w for a room for us and our two children. December 18th, 2015 the coworker and said family left for vacation, knowing we were leaving too to see our family for the holidays, they left the home in care of a 17 yr old. We proceed to leave December 19th, 2015, I was the last one out, and specifically told the 17 yr old that our room was off limits. Today, December 26th 2015, we get a call from the 17 yr old, to tell us that our 60in HDTV was broken because he as he was trying to get the dog down to her kennel, she ran into our room, and in the scuffle of him trying to wrangle the dog, our TV got broken. Once he told me that happened, I told him he would have to pay for the damages, and that he needed to speak with his mother and once they came up with a resolution then contact me, and let me know. So a few hours lapse, I text him to find out if he spoke with his mother, (my next question would've been asking for her number so I may speak with her) at which point he gives me her number. I speak with her through text, she claims I strong armed her son, and should have spoke with her immediately since he is a minor. She also claims, that since he said our door was left open, that our negligence puts us responsible for the damages done to our TV while we have been gone. Only her son and I know that I closed my door. She states that she has been over since we have left, before the TV was broke, and that our door was open. So I want to know, what should I do, is she right, if I can file a claim, and who would I file the claim against? Would I file it against the room mate who put the 17 yr old in charge of the home in all of our absences? Or the mother of the 17 yr old? Please, any help, or information would be greatly appreciated.

 

[quincy]

My fiance and I have been room mating with his coworker, their family and their dog. My fiance pays $130/w for a room for us and our two children. December 18th, 2015 the coworker and said family left for vacation, knowing we were leaving too to see our family for the holidays, they left the home in care of a 17 yr old. We proceed to leave December 19th, 2015, I was the last one out, and specifically told the 17 yr old that our room was off limits. Today, December 26th 2015, we get a call from the 17 yr old, to tell us that our 60in HDTV was broken because he as he was trying to get the dog down to her kennel, she ran into our room, and in the scuffle of him trying to wrangle the dog, our TV got broken. Once he told me that happened, I told him he would have to pay for the damages, and that he needed to speak with his mother and once they came up with a resolution then contact me, and let me know. So a few hours lapse, I text him to find out if he spoke with his mother, (my next question would've been asking for her number so I may speak with her) at which point he gives me her number. I speak with her through text, she claims I strong armed her son, and should have spoke with her immediately since he is a minor. She also claims, that since he said our door was left open, that our negligence puts us responsible for the damages done to our TV while we have been gone. Only her son and I know that I closed my door. She states that she has been over since we have left, before the TV was broke, and that our door was open. So I want to know, what should I do, is she right, if I can file a claim, and who would I file the claim against? Would I file it against the room mate who put the 17 yr old in charge of the home in all of our absences? Or the mother of the 17 yr old? Please, any help, or information would be greatly appreciated.

First, do you have renter's insurance?

 

[latigo]

My fiance and I have been room mating with his coworker, their family and their dog. My fiance pays $130/w for a room for us and our two children. December 18th, 2015 the coworker and said family left for vacation, knowing we were leaving too to see our family for the holidays, they left the home in care of a 17 yr old. We proceed to leave December 19th, 2015, I was the last one out, and specifically told the 17 yr old that our room was off limits. Today, December 26th 2015, we get a call from the 17 yr old, to tell us that our 60in HDTV was broken because he as he was trying to get the dog down to her kennel, she ran into our room, and in the scuffle of him trying to wrangle the dog, our TV got broken. Once he told me that happened, I told him he would have to pay for the damages, and that he needed to speak with his mother and once they came up with a resolution then contact me, and let me know. So a few hours lapse, I text him to find out if he spoke with his mother, (my next question would've been asking for her number so I may speak with her) at which point he gives me her number. I speak with her through text, she claims I strong armed her son, and should have spoke with her immediately since he is a minor. She also claims, that since he said our door was left open, that our negligence puts us responsible for the damages done to our TV while we have been gone. Only her son and I know that I closed my door. She states that she has been over since we have left, before the TV was broke, and that our door was open. So I want to know, what should I do, is she right, if I can file a claim, and who would I file the claim against? Would I file it against the room mate who put the 17 yr old in charge of the home in all of our absences? Or the mother of the 17 yr old? Please, any help, or information would be greatly appreciated.

Forget it! You are not going to hang this loss on any of the mentioned players.

In order to hold a custodial parent responsible (and only the custodial parent or parents) you would need to prove either: (1) That the boy purposely destroyed the set, or (2) that he possessed a conscious awareness that that his actions were of such a reckless nature that he could have reasonably anticipated the damage. (See: Oregon Revised Code Section 30.765 Liability of parent for tort of child; )

Your coworker bears no liability whatsoever. There are no laws in Oregon or elsewhere imputing tort liability under such innocent circumstances.

 

[Zigner]

To expand upon what latigo has posted (and I must admit that I find it strange that he failed to actually offer advice):

As was alluded to above, you can file a claim on your renter's insurance policy, although I suspect that value of the TV is barely over your deductible (if at all). If you don't have rent'er insurance (I suspect that you don't), then the person to sue would be the 17 year old who damaged your property. One final thing: Your door being left open doesn't put liability on you for this.

 

[latigo]

To expand upon what latigo has posted (and I must admit that I find it strange that he failed to actually offer advice):

As was alluded to above, you can file a claim on your renter's insurance policy, although I suspect that value of the TV is barely over your deductible (if at all). If you don't have rent'er insurance (I suspect that you don't), then the person to sue would be the 17 year old who damaged your property. (?) One final thing: Your door being left open doesn't put liability (?) on you for this.

Cheyeane is to sue a 17-year old for busting her big screen?! That should be interesting. Short, but interesting.

If the door were closed, would she thereby incur "liability on her part"? And to whom ? Herself?

Anyway, the less advice the less chance for error.

 

[quincy]

Cheyeane is to sue a 17-year old for busting her big screen?! That should be interesting. Short, but interesting.

If the door were closed, would she thereby incur "liability on her part"? And to whom ? Herself?

Anyway, the less advice the less chance for error.

It appears you scoff at the idea that a 17-year-old or his parents can be held liable for damage to another's property caused by a potentially-reckless act of the child. Why?

The 17-year-old admitted scuffling with a dog in Cheyeane's room and breaking the TV.

Here is a link to an Oregon State Bar Association blurb on the financial and legal responsibility of parents for their children (with "child" in Oregon being under the age of 18) - https://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1139_FinancialLegalRespParents.htm - and here is a direct link to ORS 30.765 - http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/30.765

I do not see it as unreasonable for Cheyeane to seek recovery of costs from the boy or his parents.

 

[Cheyeanne]

First, do you have renter's insurance?

No, we do not. The stay was only to be temporary.

 

[Cheyeanne]

First, do you have renter's insurance?

Forget it! You are not going to hang this loss on any of the mentioned players.

In order to hold a custodial parent responsible (and only the custodial parent or parents) you would need to prove either: (1) That the boy purposely destroyed the set, or (2) that he possessed a conscious awareness that that his actions were of such a reckless nature that he could have reasonably anticipated the damage. (See: Oregon Revised Code Section 30.765 Liability of parent for tort of child; )

Your coworker bears no liability whatsoever. There are no laws in Oregon or elsewhere imputing tort liability under such innocent circumstances.

So am I to understand, that if you were in this same position, you would hang your head and walk away from this with a busted TV and just say, "accidents happen"
So if some kids are playing baseball across the street, and some how, in innocence, a ball gets launched a cross the street and busts through your window, you're not going to ask the parents to pay for the damages, because you happen to live across the street from a baseball diamond? I posted in this forum for ADVICE and now since you have offered me some (I suppose) I must understand your logic.

 

[latigo]

So am I to understand, that if you were in this same position, you would hang your head and walk away from this with a busted TV and just say, "accidents happen"

So if some kids are playing baseball across the street, and some how, in innocence, a ball gets launched a cross the street and busts through your window, you're not going to ask the parents to pay for the damages, because you happen to live across the street from a baseball diamond? I posted in this forum for ADVICE and now since you have offered me some (I suppose) I must understand your logic.

That's right, princess.

Not every "accident" that results in the suffering of damage by another triggers a chose in action. Principally because not every accident is the result of wrongful conduct. For this there is the ancient legal doctrine of "damnum sine injuria esse protest". Look it up if you like.

As for the folks living across from a ball park and their busted oriel there is likewise the above doctrine denying relief, plus what is known as the assumption of risk.

You of course are given the prerogative of suing and naming everyone in sight. But be prepared to respond to the first question the judge is going to ask you (just before the gavel goes down and he dismisses your claim and says, "Next case"):

"Why didn't you lock your damn door!"

 

[quincy]

So am I to understand, that if you were in this same position, you would hang your head and walk away from this with a busted TV and just say, "accidents happen"
So if some kids are playing baseball across the street, and some how, in innocence, a ball gets launched a cross the street and busts through your window, you're not going to ask the parents to pay for the damages, because you happen to live across the street from a baseball diamond? I posted in this forum for ADVICE and now since you have offered me some (I suppose) I must understand your logic.

To latigo: You are assuming the room in the house where Cheyeanne and her family have been staying has an outside lock on the door. That might be a faulty assumption.

What we know is that the door was closed when Cheyeanne left the house (and closing the door would be reasonable) and we know that Cheyeanne informed the boy that he was not allowed in the room during their absence (also reasonable). We know this because Cheyeanne has told us this.

Yet, despite the closed door and instructions not to enter the room, the TV was somehow broken (dog scuffle, whatever) and the boy admitted breaking it.

I do not see the assumption of risk here. Was Cheyeanne supposed to take the TV with her to prevent its damage, when the TV was located in a room that was off-limits to both two-legged and four-legged creatures?

Yes, there is a bit of a he-said/she-said here. The only proof appears to be a broken TV and a boy who admits to breaking it. To me, that seems worthy of a small claims suit, if the boy and the mother of the boy do not offer to pay for repairs.