Invisapeeps 2.0

Papa Bear · Senior Member

RE: Ask Amy - Champagne damages computer

Forty-two · Guru

Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should , apparently, expect it to be destroyed.

Totally this! The notion that expensive things should never be on the floor is crazy, some expensive things were made to sit on the floor.

-- Edited by Forty-two on Thursday 30th of May 2013 10:26:08 AM

OpheliaDev1 · Guru

Forty-two wrote:
OpheliaDev1 wrote:
jmfeldmann wrote:
OpheliaDev1 wrote:
Cactus wrote:
What if she had ruined expensive shoes, speakers, a decorative item like a vase or statue, etc instead of a laptop?

If she spilled the champagne on a desk and ruined a computer that was there, would that somehow make her more responsible? The computer was not ruined by a floor specific type of accident. It's not like she stepped on it. Of course if she did, I would still consider that careless.
Champagne on computer on desk - Laura still has some responsibility for providing alcohol to minors and/or drinking as a minor. Soda in computer on desk - totally Emily's fault. Soda in computer on floor - as Laura's mom, I would want her to pay for half of the repairs out of her own money, b/c it's just a dumb idea to put a laptop (or other expensive item) on the floor of a dorm room. As Laura's mom, I'd be asking, why wasn't it under your bed or under your desk where it would be safe?
For example, it would be very easy for a laptop on the floor to be hidden by a towel or something. If Emily steps on a laptop that's covered by a towel, then I don't think Emily is responsible. If I were Emily's mom, I would not be paying if she stepped on a laptop covered by a towel on the floor, for example. Unless she had been drinking, then she'd be paying that full $850. THis is because i have very very strong feelings against underage drinking, and I'd want to take the opportunity staple my kid's ass to the WALL. $850 is waaaay cheaper than a DUI or a car accident.
i disagree. What ruined the laptop is not at question here, but WHO.
Emily ruined it, it is Emily's job to make Laura right.
Serving alcohol to minors is wrong. That makes Laura partly responsible for whatever happened while she was committing an illegal act.
What does that have to do with anything?

I don't understand your question. Providing soda is not illegal or wrong. If Laura provided soda and it was spilled on her laptop, she would be entirely innocent. But she was providing alcohol. So she was not innocent. We can very easily assume that the laptop may not have been damaged if Emily had not been inebriated, thanks to alcohol provided by Laura. Also, if Emily had not been inebriated, she may have been able to make a better choice, such as telling Laura that the laptop had gotten wet, drying the laptop off better, etc. Instead, she chose to blot the laptop dry with a towel and then bumble away. Maybe she is careless person who would have decided to do those things cold sober. But we can't know that, since she wasn't sober.

Laura chose to engage in risky, illegal behavior - drinking as a minor and providing alcohol to other minors. She doesn't get off scot free when something goes wrong.

Forty-two · Guru

OpheliaDev1 wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
OpheliaDev1 wrote:
jmfeldmann wrote:
OpheliaDev1 wrote:
Cactus wrote:
What if she had ruined expensive shoes, speakers, a decorative item like a vase or statue, etc instead of a laptop?

If she spilled the champagne on a desk and ruined a computer that was there, would that somehow make her more responsible? The computer was not ruined by a floor specific type of accident. It's not like she stepped on it. Of course if she did, I would still consider that careless.
Champagne on computer on desk - Laura still has some responsibility for providing alcohol to minors and/or drinking as a minor. Soda in computer on desk - totally Emily's fault. Soda in computer on floor - as Laura's mom, I would want her to pay for half of the repairs out of her own money, b/c it's just a dumb idea to put a laptop (or other expensive item) on the floor of a dorm room. As Laura's mom, I'd be asking, why wasn't it under your bed or under your desk where it would be safe?
For example, it would be very easy for a laptop on the floor to be hidden by a towel or something. If Emily steps on a laptop that's covered by a towel, then I don't think Emily is responsible. If I were Emily's mom, I would not be paying if she stepped on a laptop covered by a towel on the floor, for example. Unless she had been drinking, then she'd be paying that full $850. THis is because i have very very strong feelings against underage drinking, and I'd want to take the opportunity staple my kid's ass to the WALL. $850 is waaaay cheaper than a DUI or a car accident.
i disagree. What ruined the laptop is not at question here, but WHO.
Emily ruined it, it is Emily's job to make Laura right.
Serving alcohol to minors is wrong. That makes Laura partly responsible for whatever happened while she was committing an illegal act.
What does that have to do with anything?
I don't understand your question. Providing soda is not illegal or wrong. If Laura provided soda and it was spilled on her laptop, she would be entirely innocent. But she was providing alcohol. So she was not innocent. We can very easily assume that the laptop may not have been damaged if Emily had not been inebriated, thanks to alcohol provided by Laura. Also, if Emily had not been inebriated, she may have been able to make a better choice, such as telling Laura that the laptop had gotten wet, drying the laptop off better, etc. Instead, she chose to blot the laptop dry with a towel and then bumble away. Maybe she is careless person who would have decided to do those things cold sober. But we can't know that, since she wasn't sober.
Laura chose to engage in risky, illegal behavior - drinking as a minor and providing alcohol to other minors. She doesn't get off scot free when something goes wrong.

OD you are adding things that are no where in the OP. No where in the OP did it say she was inebriated, you have no idea how much she drank. But let's say she was falling down drunk what does that matter she still damaged the computer. I don't see the relevance. I would almost be able to understand your point if Laura handed Emily a glass of wine and then she dropped it on the computer, but the beverage that was spilled was not even one that she was drinking.

I give my guest Sally a joint and later she spills soda on my laptop and ruins it, what difference does it make that we did something illegal before the laptop was ruined?

I give Steve some blow and later he spills soda on my laptop and ruins it, what difference does it make that we did something illegal beforehand.

I am paying my illegal alien nanny under the table she spills soda on my laptop and ruins it what difference does it make that we are both committing illegal acts by our working relationship?

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
OpheliaDev1 wrote:
I don't understand your question. Providing soda is not illegal or wrong. If Laura provided soda and it was spilled on her laptop, she would be entirely innocent. But she was providing alcohol. So she was not innocent. We can very easily assume that the laptop may not have been damaged if Emily had not been inebriated, thanks to alcohol provided by Laura. Also, if Emily had not been inebriated, she may have been able to make a better choice, such as telling Laura that the laptop had gotten wet, drying the laptop off better, etc. Instead, she chose to blot the laptop dry with a towel and then bumble away. Maybe she is careless person who would have decided to do those things cold sober. But we can't know that, since she wasn't sober.
Laura chose to engage in risky, illegal behavior - drinking as a minor and providing alcohol to other minors. She doesn't get off scot free when something goes wrong.
OD you are adding things that are no where in the OP. No where in the OP did it say she was inebriated, you have no idea how much she drank. But let's say she was falling down drunk what does that matter she still damaged the computer. I don't see the relevance. I would almost be able to understand your point if Laura handed Emily a glass of wine and then she dropped it on the computer, but the beverage that was spilled was not even one that she was drinking.
I give my guest Sally a joint and later she spills soda on my laptop and ruins it, what difference does it make that we did something illegal before the laptop was ruined?
I give Steve some blow and later he spills soda on my laptop and ruins it, what difference does it make that we did something illegal beforehand.
I am paying my illegal alien nanny under the table she spills soda on my laptop and ruins it what difference does it make that we are both committing illegal acts by our working relationship?

Liability is the relevance. I thought you understood this?

If Laura hosts a party at which Emily gets drunk, if Emily crashes and drives into someone's car then Laura can be held partly liable.

If Laura provides alcohol to Emily and Emily later breaks Jane's TV, Jane could go after Laura as well as Emily.

That it was Laura's own asset that got ruined from Emily doesn't change Laura's liability. It would however make Laura think carefully about what she allows going forward.

I'd also hope she'd learn that laptops don't belong on the floor. If you want to be fool enough to keep them there, that's your call I guess.

Cactus · Senior Member

I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should , apparently, expect it to be destroyed.

Desdenova · Motherhood: Sleep is for the weak!!

Papa Bear wrote:
Desdenova wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Desdenova wrote:
I don't agree PB, for example lets say I leave my car parked outside my house, in the street, while I go inside and take my purse. Then a person that's distracted on the cellphone/changing radio stations/drunk crashes my car and totals it.

Is it my fault for leaving it outside? Should I pay for the recklessness of someone else?
It doesn't matter if I'm insured or not, the other person is at fault and should pay for the damage s/he did to my property.
Cars belong on streets or the ground. Laptops don't.
A driver has a huge amount of responsibility, far above and beyond a person just walking.
No you shouldn't pay for someone else's recklessness. However, that is not necessarily this situation.
I think that is your own standard for where a laptop should be, people have different ideas of where their laptops/electronics should be.
Going back to my analogy if I had a proper garage to put my car and I left it on the street instead of putting it where it would be safe, then I would have to pay for the repairs since I didn't put it where it was safer?

ETA: Write in a way that actually makes sense.
-- Edited by Desdenova on Wednesday 29th of May 2013 04:20:47 PM

-- Edited by Desdenova on Wednesday 29th of May 2013 04:21:12 PM
Parents have the right to let their baby nap on their driveway. If a car backs over the baby, that's on the driver. The parents were still reckless and dangerous fools for letting baby take a nap on the driveway. Because no reasonable person anticipates that a baby is taking a nap on the driveway.
That would be a better analogy for this.

Are you really putting on the same level a baby's life and a laptop? Because that's how I understand that analogy...

OpheliaDev1 · Guru

Forty-two wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should , apparently, expect it to be destroyed.
Totally this! The notion that expensive things should never be on the floor is crazy, some expensive things were made to sit on the floor.

-- Edited by Forty-two on Thursday 30th of May 2013 10:26:08 AM

Some were. Laptops are not among them. Having a couch on the floor is not being careless. That's where a couch goes. The speakers shown earlier - they are of a shape that makes them difficult to step on, and also easy to tuck into a safe place. A laptop is not tough enough to be stepped on, kicked, etc, like a couch, and it is flat and unobtrusive, unlike a speaker.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Des, the analogy is between two vulnerable, fragle, delicate things left where a reasonable person wouldn't expect them to be. The driver who backs over the baby is pretty bad, but who in their right mind lets a baby sleep on the driveway? And Emily has to pay something, but who in their right mind puts a laptop on the floor?

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.(1)

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. (2) I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should, apparently, expect it to be destroyed. (3)

1. As a matter of law, it is relevant. Laura could be held liable if Emily later got a dui.

2. I host gatherings or parties with alcohol as rarely as possible. I'm good w drinking but I do that elsewhere.

3. No offense taken! I in turn would rather avoid homes where I need to worry about where I step.

RichardInTN · I believe in I.D.I.C.

Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.(1)

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. (2) I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should, apparently, expect it to be destroyed. (3)
1. As a matter of law, it is relevant. Laura could be held liable if Emily later got a dui.
2. I host gatherings or parties with alcohol as rarely as possible. I'm good w drinking but I do that elsewhere.
3. No offense taken! I in turn would rather avoid homes where I need to worry about where I step.

"As a matter of law" it's NOT relevant because while Laura could be held liable for "providing alcohol to a minor"... Laura would NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR the acts that Emily committed while drunk. The actual acts are all on Emily... since we are going by "matter of law" (there are some jurisdictions where a nightclub or bar can be held liable for an inebriated person's conduct, but not an individual... not that I've ever heard of anyway).

Forty-two · Guru

RichardInTN wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.(1)

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. (2) I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should, apparently, expect it to be destroyed. (3)
1. As a matter of law, it is relevant. Laura could be held liable if Emily later got a dui.
2. I host gatherings or parties with alcohol as rarely as possible. I'm good w drinking but I do that elsewhere.
3. No offense taken! I in turn would rather avoid homes where I need to worry about where I step.
"As a matter of law" it's NOT relevant because while Laura could be held liable for "providing alcohol to a minor"... Laura would NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR the acts that Emily committed while drunk. The actual acts are all on Emily... since we are going by "matter of law" (there are some jurisdictions where a nightclub or bar can be held liable for an inebriated person's conduct, but not an individual... not that I've ever heard of anyway).

More significantly SO WHAT if she could be held liable if Emily got a DUI what on earth does that have to do with getting a laptop wet?

RichardInTN · I believe in I.D.I.C.

Forty-two wrote:
RichardInTN wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I agree with 42-the underage drinking is not relevent IMO. We don't know that she was drunk and even if she was she is still responsible.(1)

I guess it's better to never have guests if giving them alcohol means they are not responsible if they destroy your property. (2) I would also rather not have guests who think it's open season on the floor because nothing of value should be kept there and if it is, one should, apparently, expect it to be destroyed. (3)
1. As a matter of law, it is relevant. Laura could be held liable if Emily later got a dui.
2. I host gatherings or parties with alcohol as rarely as possible. I'm good w drinking but I do that elsewhere.
3. No offense taken! I in turn would rather avoid homes where I need to worry about where I step.
"As a matter of law" it's NOT relevant because while Laura could be held liable for "providing alcohol to a minor"... Laura would NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR the acts that Emily committed while drunk. The actual acts are all on Emily... since we are going by "matter of law" (there are some jurisdictions where a nightclub or bar can be held liable for an inebriated person's conduct, but not an individual... not that I've ever heard of anyway).
More significantly SO WHAT if she could be held liable if Emily got a DUI what on earth does that have to do with getting a laptop wet?

Nothing. That's my point to PBJ.