Will I have to pay for damage my nephew may have caused on my neighbors plumbing?

[quincy]

Hmm. I wasn't suggesting that.

Okay.

Washington provides foster parents with liability insurance which could be an option, although the insurance won’t cover illegal conduct (or bad faith acts). That could be a problem for Philton with his insurance, as well.

I would be interested in learning under what conditions the nephew is released by the foster family to Philton for visits (i.e., who if anyone needs to approve the visits).

 

[zddoodah]

How likely is it I will have to pay?

Section 4.24.190 of the Revised Code of Washington states as follows: "The parent or parents of any minor child under the age of eighteen years who is living with the parent or parents and who shall willfully or maliciously destroy or deface property, real or personal or mixed, or who shall willfully and maliciously inflict personal injury on another person, shall be liable to the owner of such property or to the person injured in a civil action at law for damages in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars. This section shall in no way limit the amount of recovery against the parent or parents for their own common law negligence."

There does not appear to be any similar statute making a legal guardian (or a person in loco parentis) liable and, even if there were, you don't appear to be a legal guardian. The argument is that, if the legislature wanted to extend liability to a non-parent, including a temporary caregiver, why did it expressly limit the statute to "parents"? Of course, it's possible that there's case authority on this subject, and one would need to research case law to form a firm conclusion. Thus, in addition to there being evidentiary issues, there is a legal issue. Nevertheless, the smart thing would be for you to put your homeowner's or renter's insurance carrier on notice of the incident and the threat to sue.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Nevertheless, the smart thing would be for you to put your homeowner's or renter's insurance carrier on notice of the incident and the threat to sue.

I second this. Not only smart, but is likely to be the least expensive way for you to deal with this should the neighbor go through with the threat to sue.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to one of a few Washington statutes relating to foster parents, this on liability insurance specifically for foster parents:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=74.14b.080

Perhaps before involving his own insurance to cover the costs of property damage (possibly) caused by his nephew, Philton first might want to see if he actually can be held liable for the acts of his nephew. I obviously thought he could at first, as the nephew was under his care and supervision at the time of the incident, but others apparently seem to disagree.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Perhaps before involving his own insurance to cover the costs of property damage (possibly) caused by his nephew, Philton first might want to see if he actually can be held liable for the acts of his nephew. I obviously thought he could at first, as the nephew was under his care and supervision at the time of the incident, but others apparently seem to disagree.

If he wants the help of his insurer to help cover costs, I'd say he needs to that sooner rather than later. His policy likely requires prompt notification and any delay might hamper the insurance company's ability to investigate and defend the claim. In that case, the insurer may end up denying coverage. Notifying the insurer doesn't obligate the OP to pay anything out of his pocket (other than perhaps a deductible amount). Anything more than that will only be owed if a court renders a judgment against the OP, and as discussed in this thread it's not clear the neighbor will succeed in doing that.

 

[quincy]

If he wants the help of his insurer to help cover costs, I'd say he needs to that sooner rather than later. His policy likely requires prompt notification and any delay might hamper the insurance company's ability to investigate and defend the claim. In that case, the insurer may end up denying coverage. Notifying the insurer doesn't obligate the OP to pay anything out of his pocket (other than perhaps a deductible amount). Anything more than that will only be owed if a court renders a judgment against the OP, and as discussed in this thread it's not clear the neighbor will succeed in doing that.

Okay. I don’t see that the neighbor has enough to be demanding money of anyone at this point but, sure, Philton can contact his insurer (and the foster family probably should, too).

 

[Taxing Matters]

Okay. I don’t see that the neighbor has enough to be demanding money of anyone at this point but, sure, Philton can contact his insurer (and the foster family probably should, too).

I agree with you that from what we know so far the neighbor's case looks pretty thin. Let me explain where I'm coming from on this. I am cautious when it comes to things like this because, while the neighbor's case doesn't look great from what we know, the neighbor might still succeed in winning some kind of judgment. I've seen enough cases to know that sometimes even a plaintiff with what appears to me to be a poor case still wins something. The neighbor's insurance should pay for this other than any deductible, so it may be that the neighbor might not bother to sue for the deductible. I'd bet the neighbor's insurer wouldn't bother to sue for the amount it paid out.

That said, even with all the challenges the neighbor has, there is at least a small chance the neighbor might succeed. Because notifying the insurer really has no downside that I can see and is easy to do, IMO it is worthwhile to notify the insurer just in case somehow the neighbor pulls a rabbit out of the hat and wins a judgment.

Other than that, I don't see that there is really anything the OP can do about this now. And since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'd encourage the OP not to engage in any conversation about this incident. Just refuse to talk about it. Sometimes a person who otherwise would win a case will shoot himself/herself in the foot by saying something that could be taken as some kind of admission of liability.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I can see that others might have a different view of how the OP should proceed and those approaches might end up working out just fine. I take that your view is that the OP will be fine just doing nothing, and that may turn out to be correct. For me, though, I prefer lower the chances the neighbor might win, even though the neighbor's chances look pretty poor. That's just my conservative nature on dealing with stuff like this.

I know that the explanation here is a lot longer than you're probably interested in reading and that you already know much of what I've said, but maybe it will give the OP something useful to consider in weighing options for handling this.

And no, I don't get paid by the word, whether here or in my practice.

 

[quincy]

... I take that your view is that the OP will be fine just doing nothing, and that may turn out to be correct. ...

Not exactly. My view is that Philton should not pay his neighbor anything or admit his nephew did anything until he learns more, like where the firecracker came from.

I suspect the young boys as a group came up with the brilliant idea of blowing up the toilet. This does not sound to me like a one-kid action. There more than likely was encouragement. And, in believing that as I do, I also think that the one who supplied the firecracker should at the very least share liability.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Not exactly. My view is that Philton should not pay his neighbor anything or admit his nephew did anything until he learns more, like where the firecracker came from.

I was pretty close then. And I agree with that point. The OP shouldn't say anything right now to the neighbor or the neighbor's car insurance company and should try to get as much information the OP can get with reasonable effort. But as you know, simply contacting the insurance company is not an admission of liability. So that's not going to hurt him/her. That being the case, I think taking that one extra step to notify the insurer is prudent.

I suspect the young boys as a group came up with the brilliant idea of blowing up the toilet. This does not sound to me like a one-kid action. There more than likely was encouragement. And, in believing that as I do, I also think that the one who supplied the firecracker should at the very least share liability.

Some of the dumbest things people do comes about from the urging of others, especially friends. I think you are right that a group of boys around the age of the OP's nephew would all be excited about setting the thing off, totally oblivious to the possible dangers. Then once it goes badly, each would have the incentive to point to someone else as the responsible person. All of them might in fact share the liability for the toilet bombing, though the role of each of them played would impact how damages would be assessed.

I also think that the one who supplied the firecracker should at the very least share liability.

I do too and I hope nothing I've said here suggests otherwise. Absent some mitigating factor, I'd think the kid that brought the firework should have a greater share of liability than the others. It might do the kid some good to spend a month or so in jail to get the point across.

It's incidents like this that make me concerned when I see a group of teen boys hanging out with seemingly nothing productive to do.I get that foreboding sense that they'll end up doing something stupid. This case seems to be a good illustration of that.

 

[quincy]

... The OP shouldn't say anything right now to the neighbor or the neighbor's car insurance company and should try to get as much information the OP can get with reasonable effort. But as you know, simply contacting the insurance company is not an admission of liability. So that's not going to hurt him/her. That being the case, I think taking that one extra step to notify the insurer is prudent.



Some of the dumbest things people do comes about from the urging of others, especially friends. I think you are right that a group of boys around the age of the OP's nephew would all be excited about setting the thing off, totally oblivious to the possible dangers. Then once it goes badly, each would have the incentive to point to someone else as the responsible person. All of them might in fact share the liability for the toilet bombing, though the role of each of them played would impact how damages would be assessed.



I do too and I hope nothing I've said here suggests otherwise. Absent some mitigating factor, I'd think the kid that brought the firework should have a greater share of liability than the others. It might do the kid some good to spend a month or so in jail to get the point across.

It's incidents like this that make me concerned when I see a group of teen boys hanging out with seemingly nothing productive to do.I get that foreboding sense that they'll end up doing something stupid. This case seems to be a good illustration of that.

Probably homeowners insurance. The car insurer no doubt would be puzzled by contact from Philton.

And the homeowners insurer probably would have no interest unless or until there was a clear demand for compensation (written or oral) from the neighbor. Threats to sue are far more common than suits.

If reporting the incident to his insurer, Philton will need to be careful what he says. He does not want to compromise his legal position by stating or implying possible fault on his part or on the part of his nephew.

 

[commentator]

Didn't we say this nephew, at least was 12 years old? I really think a "month in jail" is a little excessive for punishment, unless there was someone in the group who was much older who brought the firework in, set it all up, got the 12 year old to actually do the drop and flush....but in any case, of course the kids who knew each other would be happy to blame the outsider, and the nephew very well may have been showing off by showing them he was willing to do it. I do not see how this makes him solely at fault and I would not consider paying for the neighbor's toilet until this whole situation was clearer.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

I don’t believe this was an ordinary “firecracker” (which would be extinguished when wet) and believe it was on the order of a M-80, cherry bomb or larger to cause allegedly $3k worth of damage to a toilet and sewer piping. If the bomb set up a destructive “water hammer” in the system it could very well cause $3k of damage.

My remedy would be to ask all children and parents involved to share in the legitimate cost of repairs.

 

[quincy]

Didn't we say this nephew, at least was 12 years old? I really think a "month in jail" is a little excessive for punishment, unless there was someone in the group who was much older who brought the firework in, set it all up, got the 12 year old to actually do the drop and flush....but in any case, of course the kids who knew each other would be happy to blame the outsider, and the nephew very well may have been showing off by showing them he was willing to do it. I do not see how this makes him solely at fault and I would not consider paying for the neighbor's toilet until this whole situation was clearer.

Yes. Philton said his nephew is 12.

I agree that jail time probably should not be punishment for any of the minor children although, legally, any child 12 or older is considered, under Washington state law, capable of committing a crime https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.050

In this case, a possible charge could be “malicious mischief.” Malicious mischief, where damage to another’s property is over $750 but under $5000, is a Class C felony and comes with the possibility of 5 years in prison (juvenile detention for 12-year-olds). https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.080.1

I think this probably is best viewed as a kid prank that resulted in unexpected or ill-considered damage rather than as a malicious act. My opinion could change if the “firecracker” that was tossed was a “sparkler bomb” which requires construction (sparkler plus duct tape) or (as a Bali Hai mentioned) a cherry bomb.

Fortunately, it does not sound like police were called and no criminal charge(s) is being considered. Currently, at least.

The big and important unknown is the source of the firecracker.

 

[Zigner]

My remedy would be to ask all children and parents involved to share in the legitimate cost of repairs.

If all the adults in this matter were reasonable, I would think this to be a good solution.

 

[quincy]

If all the adults in this matter were reasonable, I would think this to be a good solution.

I am not sure I would call a parent unreasonable for not wanting to pay for plumbing repairs necessitated by the acts of another. I would expect the one or ones responsible to pay.

I am aware that finding the real culprit or culprits might not be easy, though. If this happened to me, I would simply submit a claim to my own insurer, eat the deductible, and call it a day.

And not invite any kids to my next barbecue.