Cell phone confiscated by school is lost

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

50/50 at best against the school

The more I think about it, it's like the car insurance company that look for fault.

Other thing to consider is that a NEW phone is worth $200. How much is a used phone worth? Even if they can get the school to accept responsiblity, they probably will NOT get the $200.

If this has been my child, I would suspend their phone service until they can afford to buy a new phone. I think the kiddo would be MUCH more responsible for a new phone if they have to go and mow lawns and babysit to replace it They might even find out that they don't NEED a $200 phone.

 

[las365]

this issue is not whether the child was wrong in having it...the issue is that the school (in which the teacher is employed and followed their policy aside from securing it) took the phone which didn't belong to the school and assumed responsibility in using reasonable care

That's where we differ. I think both issues are pertinent to liability for the mother's property loss.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Teacher was wrong to not secure the phone.

Child was wrong to have it on in class.

Phone cost $200 new. How much is it worth now?

The teacher taking the phone into her custody implied that it would be taken to the office and a parent could then pick it up.

Question is who is more 'wrong' here?

 

[lya]

Ginny

Newton's Third Law is "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Don't you think you ought to correct your signature line?

 

[GulfBreeze]

That's where we differ. I think both issues are pertinent to liability for the mother's property loss.

obviously.....we differ because the penalty stated in the policy was NOT that the phone would be lost. It says that it would be turned over to the office where it would then be returned to the owner's parent. where and what part don't you understand? nowhere does it say that the phone, if brought to school, would be lost. this is where they are at fault. they did not follow their own policy and they did not use reasonable care. you dont take an expensive item and leave it out for anyone to take. criminals when booked, have their belongings checked for inventory and put in a safe place until released. then it is checked over and handed back to them upon release. why should a child who breaks a school policy be held to a lower standard? why should the phone be treated as a way to teach someone a $200 lesson. had the policy said anything different than it said, like we will not guarantee its return, then maybe. not the case here.

as for the value...the question is not whether it is new or used...its the replacement of the phone. who is to say that the phone was not in excellent condition. granted, it may be used, but replacing the phone will cost $200 and that should not be anything lower....

we have people who come to the hospital and claim that the hospital lost their glasses and want new ones....we dont argue that they were used. we just pay for new ones if we are found to have not used reasonable care for their items. the patient goes and buys a new one and hands the receipt over to accounting and gets the full amount.

this should be a lesson to the school. if you are going to take an item from a student, make sure you take care of it.

 

[Zigner]

as for the value...the question is not whether it is new or used...its the replacement of the phone. who is to say that the phone was not in excellent condition. granted, it may be used, but replacing the phone will cost $200 and that should not be anything lower....

this should be a lesson to the school. if you are going to take an item from a student, make sure you take care of it.

Gulf - You're wrong about the value. In court, the parents will NOT be entitled to the replacement value of the phone.

As for the second item I quoted - I think another option the school would have is to do as they do in our local schools. They expressly disclaim responsibility for the confiscated electronic items

 

[GulfBreeze]

Gulf - You're wrong about the value. In court, the parents will NOT be entitled to the replacement value of the phone.

As for the second item I quoted - I think another option the school would have is to do as they do in our local schools. They expressly disclaim responsibility for the confiscated electronic items

well, most sensible people that have a $200 phone have insurance on them. only cost a couple of dollars a month. so, its not like the price that whomever pays for it will have to pay $200...thats isn't the point. replacement of the phone is. the school accepted the responsibility when they took it. otherwise, if parents or kids knew that the school wasn't going to use proper care, they would not hand the phone over. it would just be easy to say...kids, just dont take phones with you...however, my kids have phones and take them with them to school. i let them in the event of an emergency. we now live in a time where kids are around many threats. weirdos hanging out around schools, kidnapping kids, people or other kids shooting kids at school, etc...use of phones are not allowed on planes yet on 9/11, we all know how important that use became. i tell my kids not to use their phone during school. they obey this. the kid was wrong, but the family didn't deserve the school's failure to take care of the phone.

bottom line. the kid broke the policy and the school messed up...you see, the teacher lost the phone but is employed by the school, so the school becomes the one liable.

 

[Zigner]

...replacement of the phone is...

But that is simply not the case. The parents are entitled to the actual value of the phone. NOT the replacement value.

 

[JustAPal00]

First off the phone wasn't lost, it was stolen. It was placed in a podium and then removed by someone other than the teacher or the owner! Secondly the teacher shouldn't be required to make a special trip to the office to deliver the confiscated phone. If he teacher was planning to deliver it at the end of the day, then that should be acceptabile. If their was a locking desk or cabinet in the room, then the teacher should have placed it in there. If not, then they did the best that they could do. The teacher is there to teach, not worry about some spoiled little kids expensive toy!

 

[GulfBreeze]

But that is simply not the case. The parents are entitled to the actual value of the phone. NOT the replacement value.

without you being the actual person who will determine it, how will that be figured out and by whom? if it cost $200 and was used a few months, how do you prorate it? or do you base t on condition..in which the owner could say that it was in excellent shape. then, lets say they give $100, half of the cost...they are not obligated to tell the school that they might have insurance and only have to pay a small cost if any to get a new one....lol

we are now arguing over the cost. so glad we got pass the main issue that the school is 100% liable...which they are.

 

[GulfBreeze]

If not, then they did the best that they could do. The teacher is there to teach, not worry about some spoiled little kids expensive toy!

lol....that was the BEST the teacher could do? leave it out in the open for anyone to take. might as well left $200 cash out on the desk. you are so silly.

if the teacher is there to teach and not worry about expensive "toys", then why was she so concern as to have to take it? apparently she was....

since when were phones considered "toys"? the teacher should have minded her own business then and not accepted the responsibility of taking it...otherwise she should have "secured" it or taken it to the office.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Hind sight is 20/20

Guess the teacher should have sent the misbehaving child to the principal's office to turn his own phone in, huh? Seems that teachers can call from their room to the principal's office to tell them WHY said student is being sent down.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Las,

You are soooooooooooooooooooooo wrong. Why not just stop posting on this thread.

Again****************************......

Kid used phone, (Don't they all,lol), Teacher took it.

School policy is for that phone to be delivered to the office for parent pick up. Period, end of story.

Debate all you want.

I have had to pick up my daughters phone from school many of times for texting. She has now learned her lesson.

I posted a link, read it and learn, or you can keep debating a dead subject.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Gulf - You're wrong about the value. In court, the parents will NOT be entitled to the replacement value of the phone.

As for the second item I quoted - I think another option the school would have is to do as they do in our local schools. They expressly disclaim responsibility for the confiscated electronic items

I would love to see that policy. Show us a link.

 

[JustAPal00]

Las,

You are soooooooooooooooooooooo wrong. Why not just stop posting on this thread.

Again****************************......

Kid used phone, (Don't they all,lol), Teacher took it.

School policy is for that phone to be delivered to the office for parent pick up. Period, end of story.

Debate all you want.

I have had to pick up my daughters phone from school many of times for texting. She has now learned her lesson.

I posted a link, read it and learn, or you can keep debating a dead subject.

It was stolen before it could be delivered!