Hi ladies, I need your opinion in the following scenario:
Billy is renting out a master bedroom in John's house. The room has an attached bathroom and Billy is the only one who uses it. The house is from the 70's and does not have upgraded appliances. The toilet has a stamp on it that says it is from 1981.
Billy has never noticed anything wrong with the toilet. One day, right before Billy goes out he uses the toilet and flushes. Then he leaves the house. No one else is home. Two hours later, John gets a call from the neighbors because there is water overflowing from inside the house and leaking out the balcony. John notifies Billy and Billy goes home to find his room soaking wet. He discovered that there is something wrong with the toilet. Inside the tank, there is a chain attached to a plug so that when the tank is filled with water after a flush, the plug closes and the water stops filling. However, the chain somehow got detached from the plug so the water continued to fill the tank, overflowing the toilet and causing a flood in the room. Billy simply reattached the chain to the plug and now the toilet is working properly again. However, there is now damage to the carpet as well as the downstairs ceiling below Billy's room.
John is trying to decide whether he should take the repair costs out of Billy's deposit. If Billy had been more conscientious and/or didn't leave the house immediately after the flush, he would've noticed the toilet overflowing and stopped it before the damage was done. There were no problems with the toilet before Billy moved in. Billy is the only one who uses that toilet and he probably misused the toilet, causing the chain to break off. Billy is the one living in that room so he should be responsible for the damages that occur inside the room.
Billy feels it's not his fault that the toilet is old and has a chain that can detach on its own and no mechanism to stop it from overflowing. The owner failed to maintain the house properly and that was what resulted in the flood. Even though it was his private toilet, he has never misused it. He didn't know there was something wrong with it and flushed it like it's any other toilet. He has never looked inside the tank. If there was someone else living in that room, the same thing would have happened eventually after X number of flushes. The fact that he had left the house immediately after that fateful flush was due to bad luck, not neglect.
As a neutral third party, who do you think is responsible for the repair costs? Thanks in advance for any help.
Billy is renting out a master bedroom in John's house. The room has an attached bathroom and Billy is the only one who uses it. The house is from the 70's and does not have upgraded appliances. The toilet has a stamp on it that says it is from 1981.
Billy has never noticed anything wrong with the toilet. One day, right before Billy goes out he uses the toilet and flushes. Then he leaves the house. No one else is home. Two hours later, John gets a call from the neighbors because there is water overflowing from inside the house and leaking out the balcony. John notifies Billy and Billy goes home to find his room soaking wet. He discovered that there is something wrong with the toilet. Inside the tank, there is a chain attached to a plug so that when the tank is filled with water after a flush, the plug closes and the water stops filling. However, the chain somehow got detached from the plug so the water continued to fill the tank, overflowing the toilet and causing a flood in the room. Billy simply reattached the chain to the plug and now the toilet is working properly again. However, there is now damage to the carpet as well as the downstairs ceiling below Billy's room.
John is trying to decide whether he should take the repair costs out of Billy's deposit. If Billy had been more conscientious and/or didn't leave the house immediately after the flush, he would've noticed the toilet overflowing and stopped it before the damage was done. There were no problems with the toilet before Billy moved in. Billy is the only one who uses that toilet and he probably misused the toilet, causing the chain to break off. Billy is the one living in that room so he should be responsible for the damages that occur inside the room.
Billy feels it's not his fault that the toilet is old and has a chain that can detach on its own and no mechanism to stop it from overflowing. The owner failed to maintain the house properly and that was what resulted in the flood. Even though it was his private toilet, he has never misused it. He didn't know there was something wrong with it and flushed it like it's any other toilet. He has never looked inside the tank. If there was someone else living in that room, the same thing would have happened eventually after X number of flushes. The fact that he had left the house immediately after that fateful flush was due to bad luck, not neglect.
As a neutral third party, who do you think is responsible for the repair costs? Thanks in advance for any help.
