My youngest is 18. He STILL lives at home.
He is allowed to live here. By allowed I mean, he has no legal right to do so. He owns no part of the dwelling, he pays no rent, we have no written agreement, etc… Legally I could toss him out of here any time I choose. (don’t think I don’t remind him of this fact to keep him in line! )
But while he has no legal right to live here, it is still his current “legal address”.
So, what happens if, say, he were to slip on a patch of ice on our front patio. Could he successfully sue me for not keeping the sidewalk clear? What would the courts say? Being an adult resident here, is he just as responsible for the upkeep here? Or does that responsibility fall only on the owner? This is a strictly a hypethetical question. But I’m looking for some case law.
IANAL but I don’t see why he couldn’t sue you (of course technically anyone can sue for anything…whether it makes it to court or you have a winning case is another matter). It seems to me you are the owner of the property and responsible for proper upkeep and reasonable safety. Whether the slipping on ice is enough for a decent lawsuit I see no reason why your 18 year old son has any less ability to sue you than anyone else would. I don’t think it matters if he pays rent or not. In the court’s eyes he’s just some guy who slipped on ice and is trying to hold the property owner responsible.
IANAL, but there’s a practical side to this. Normally, such a suit would be to cover medical costs – and you should have some sort of household insurance that covers such accidents. And he should have medical insurance (and could probably be covered under yours.)
That doesn’t answer the academic question of whether he could sue, but on the practical side, insurance does provide you financial protection against such adverse circumstances.
i can remember reading an article (it might have been on the board) about a burglar that successfully sued a family when he slipped in their kitchen and injured himself. apparently he had such right because the house was not kept safe. no cite sorry
Law school answer: your kid is a licensee (“guest”, pretty much), and as such you have a duty to warn him of dangerous conditions on your property that you know about and which he is unlikely to discover. You have no duty to inspect for such conditons or make the premises safe. So no, he probably couldn’t sue you.
Seriously? There is no negligence or disregard for safety or somesuch thing that could get you in trouble? I understand that you don’t need to put rubber matting down around your house but you are ok to leave overt dangers be (e.g. ice, broken glass, rabid pit bull, etc.)?
Yep, that’s the majority rule for duty of care owed to a licensee; the minority just applies a reasonable man standard. If the tap water in your bathroom faucet is blisteringly hot or your porch step is dangerously loose, all you have to do is warn a licensee if you know about it. You aren’t required to inspect or repair.
However, a different standard will apply if you are engaged in an ultrahazardous of abnormally dangerous activity, or are keeping a wild animal (rabid pit bulls count). In that case, you will be stricly liable for damage caused, regardless of fault or negligence on your part.
Also, it’s important that were talking about defects and dangerous conditions in the land or premises itself, not things that are due to active operations or misconduct on the part of the landowner.
My homeowners’ policy specifically states it does not cover personal injury to a member of my own household. I’m pretty sure that means an adult child (or, for that matter, a roommate) would not be covered by the policy.
Aw, c’monMarley. You’ve been around here just as long as me. You know we can’t say stuff like that without somebody coming along to bust our chops for a cite.
When he sues you, tell the judge that part of the ‘chores’ he was supposed to do (in exchange for free room & board) was to shovel the snow & ice off the sidewalk. So the ice he slipped on was there only because he failed to do his job. And now he’s sueing you for that.
If the Judge has ever raised teenage children, you should get a pretty sympathetic hearing!
–He certainly could sue you, and win. A good friend of mine sued his mother under very similar circumstances. They weren’t antagonistic or in need of family counseling; he broke his arm after a household accident and her insurance policy wouldn’t pay his medical bills without a lawsuit and a verdict in his favor. So yes, there is relevant precedent.
–Your son is a resident of your house untill he actively moves out. The arrangement isn’t terminated by your expressed desire for him to leave, or by his magically turning 18 (Do you know how many incompetent adults are made wards of their adult relatives? Lots!). You can have him evicted if you want, but the process takes a few months, he can stall it indefinitely, and the Sheriff’s department may elect not to get involved with your silly-assed family problems unless someone’s life is at risk. Your easiest course of action is to sell the house and not let him establish residence in the new place. Alas, there is precedent for this as well.
Legal issues aside, there are practical reasons your kid couldn’t successfully sue. Like money. Does he have any? If so, how much? I’m almost twenty, work at Burger King, and thanks to my duty to contribute to my education, I have </me turns out pockets> three cents to my name. Two more, and I have enough money to photocopy the appropriate law, or print out a document at the local library, but not both. No money for a lawyer, or filing fees, or a bus ride to the courthouse. Your kid may not be as broke as me, but even a small claims suit is going to be well beyond his means.
Even if he had the money to file the paperwork himself, it’s unlikely he has enough money for a lawyer - and nobody’s going to take this pro bono, it’s just too absurd. (imho) . And filing a suit is hard. To have even a chance, you need to establish exhaustive documentation supporting your case - tell me, can your kid prove he fell the way he says he did? Did he go to the hospital? Get pictures taken of the injury? I doubt it.
How about the site where he fell? Any pictures of that? No? Any proof it wasn’t properly salted?
I hope this is hypothetical - with all due respect, if your kid is dumb enough to think he can do this, he need to have a blood test done for lead poisoning.
And if he does have lead poisoning from lead paint in your house, he can sue you for that. Or at least have a slightly, slightly better chance of success than with the slip-and-fall.
He doesn’t necessarily need any money if he can get an attorney to take the case on a contingency fee basis. Of course an attorney would have to feel there is a legitimate case and a reasonable payday to account for his/her work (not only the possible total judgment amount but the chances that the defendant can pay the judgement…even if I had an iron clad case against you and could expect a million dollar judgement I’d be lucky to see $0.03 of it). In this case it seems no attorney would pick this one up as the case lacks merit but the point is you can sue someone even if you don’t have any money to pay for the attorney (the attorney picks up all costs such as court fees and the like and adds that to the contingency fee if they win).
)
Or at least have a slightly, slightly better chance of success than with the slip-and-fall.