http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/landlord_liable_in_toddlers_fa. html

A 4-year-old girl who tumbled head first from a second-story window in the Gresham duplex her family rented has been awarded $560,000 by a Multnomah County jury.

The jury voted 10-2 to order the landlord -- Keys Rental Management -- to pay the money into a fund for Isabella White. She suffered a cracked skull, bleeding in her brain and the loss of brain tissue after her head struck the pavement in April 2007.

Isabella was 2 1/2 years old when she fell. Her mother, Melisa Yerdon, had opened a second-story window to air out a mess their dog made inside the duplex in the 5900 block of Southeast 15th Loop. Yerdon said that she hadn't planned on leaving Isabella alone, but dashed out when she heard her 6-year-old son yelling downstairs.

Isabella plummeted to the driveway below. A screen on the window wasn't strong enough to hold her in.

-As a landlord I find this kind of jury award frightening. It's up to the parents to protect their kids and child proof their residence, not the landlord. The parents are to blame, not the landlord, because the parent failed to supervise her on child and left her in harm's way.

Does this mean we have to warn people not to stick knives in the electric sockets? Not to touch a hot oven? Not to take a bath with the hair dryer on?

This kind of crap is why our insurance premiums are so high too.

Saying the landlord is liable is like saying the car salesman that sold a drunk driver that kills someone is at fault.

Or like getting a speeding ticket while riding in a taxi cab.

The Judge should have sent the jury back into deliberation and told them to get real.

I agree with you 10000%, Vitalogy.

Being a parent, I know there are times you get distracted between your children. This was a bad accident. But since the goverment says you have to rent to famlies, What can you do. Plus there was a screen in place. I hope the insurance co. goes all the way to the supream court on ths one. Another good example why not to be a landlord in the state of Oregon.

This is one to watch for sure!

After thinking about it for a bit, there is awareness of a problem, and just some random thing that happens.

This case is focused on a bad thing that happened, coupled with awareness of the potential for it to happen.

I suspect if there were no prior accidents of this kind, the case would have gone differently.

In particular, young people falling out of windows has occured repeatedly in the set of properties, and there is sourced data indicating this is a problem that is recurring and not geographically limited some how. Heck, a season is mentioned! I'm quite sure that's how they got the favorable judgment.

Where the worry is then is all about what is a reasonable expectation of being aware of things happening.

Being so informed then is easy. Just do the reasonable thing and all is good.

If I were a landlord, after seeing this go down, I would invest some in making damn sure I was covered on the expectation of being aware part, become aware, and then implement the most reasonable cost protective measures. Would document exactly that too, as implementing some of them will take some measure of time.

Should those measures prove inconvenient or onerous to renters, they can sign a waiver and do what they will, within the limits of being a renter. (not changing the property, etc...)

Would be interesting to go read the case files on this. I'm extremely curious as to the legal test for both the expectation of awareness and reasonable prevention bit.

That's the key to it, as of this decision.

As the case rises, if it rises, either we will see a clear legal test, or the decision will be tossed.

That is how these things usually go.

And if this decision worries you as a landlord (and it would worry me), it might not be a bad idea to get that case file from the public record, pay a coupla hours of legal time, and sort out where the legal test is right now and then just do that.

(BTW, this is exactly what I do when confronted with new decisions that could impact business. We normally have an attorney evaluate the case file. Depending on what it is, we will sometimes just look at a case to learn.)

In my line of work, there are national organizations that regularly publish analysis like this. I have memberships and invest some time watching cases that could have an impact. They often publish news and that's how you become aware of cases.

IMHO, this is just part of due diligence where protecting your revenue is concerned.

It might not be all that bad! Heck, in this market, it's possible to pass this cost on to the renters as well. A small bump on the rent, along with a letter explaining why would do some advocacy toward not having these kinds of cases happen, and get your costs covered for making sure they don't happen to you, and by extension your renters, and frame you as a good, responsible landlord.

It's an opportunity man!

(and yes, I often get paid to sort that kind of thing out too. There is almost always an upside!)

The above serves nicely as a counter point to the general idea that lawsuits raise insurance premiums.

There is a solid case for business owners doing more due diligence to keep those premiums low as well. Just buying insurance, without doing your part, will raise premiums for everybody.

But, it absolutely has to be said that well informed, responsible business ownership is a lot more secure and low risk than not.

If anything, this case affirms that, and I don't disagree.

Missing --you miss the point. Bedroom windows are for being able to escape from a FIRE. The first stupid renter who burns to death. Because you put bars up, who was unable to figure out how to use the quick release latch. Because they were scared, and froze up. You can put another zero on the lawsuit. And of course its the landlords fault. NOT. And shoud we have mandatory course for renters...Don't put your hand down the drain and turn on the disposal. Don't touch the stove when its hot. Be sure to flush the john. Or it is a health risk. Take out the garbage or its a health risk. When would it end.

I'm absolutely not missing the point.

Of course they are for escape! And there is the rub!

What I just posted was a business response to the thing. (remember our conversation about ratings and the executives at the top?)

This is a similar kind of thing. From a business perspective I need to manage both risk and cost.

So then, given this decision, the lower risk is to perform an analysis of what this decision means, incorporate that into my business process, and pass those costs onto those I serve, where it makes sense.

Say what you want, the courts do what the courts do.

This particular case is troublesome, for the reason you just gave. Bummer. However, the other point on this thread was about lawsuits and insurance policies.

Well, that can be mitigated by doing a bit more dilligence!

If I'm in business to make money, I'll do that dilligence because I want to keep risk low. Where risk is low, my business is more stable and profitable. A nice side effect of this is less risk for the insurance to cover!

Depending on what that legal test is, the dilligence may range from a notice to a simple walk through on the property, to a forced choice on their part. Do the bars, quick release, screen, or nothing?

The court decision took us down this path, so the correct business response is to deal with it in the most efficient way possible, so that the making of the money can happen as it should.

This is what we do, and we don't get caught up in silly crap like this. All part of the cost of doing business.

The problem with risk, if not managed, is that it eventually turns into dollars. Some people just buy insurance, thinking it will just cover them and they can do what they want to.

Well, it mostly does, and that raises the cost of it for everybody.

If insurance is purchased, and the business runs in a lower risk fashion, then those costs are lowered, and guess what?

There are fewer lawsuits as well!

From a business stand point it cuts both ways, which is all I was saying there.

From a stupid lawsuit point of view, yeah I don't like it! Bummer for the kid too. It's a bad scene all around.

Then again, some attorney somewhere saw a management company potentially vulnerable and went for it. Bummer there too, right?

So then, given that dynamic is in play, (and it is --it always is) the business response is to be a lot less vulnerable right?

And that's my post.

What we all think about the window is a secondary political thing. That's advocacy for the politicians, and that debate enters the political process, and each of us thinks what we think.

Different matter altogether. Vitalogy indicated he was a landlord. As a landlord he is worried about this decision.

I posted a solid way to address that worry. Business is business. Political advocacy is political advocacy. They are different.

Million dollar question of the day!

Why is a parent found guilty when they leave a child alone in a car on a hot day and they perish from the heat and this person gets a settlement for leaving their child alone in a room with an open window? It all boils down to a negligent parent not the property owner and/or person who sold the car! RIGHT???? RIGHT???

AWWWW Crap, I was driving while typing this and spilled my scalding hot starbucks coffee in my lap, anybody got the number of a good attorney???

Expectations.

That's your answer right there!

Is there an expectation that a car owner can build the car in such a fashion as to not make this possible?

Not really.

Also, is there an expectation that your average joe understands the dynamic of kids and hot cars?

Absolutely.

That's where the guilt is!

What isn't established is the expectation that property management companies couldn't do the same for their properties, given awareness of the problem. That's why we saw the judgment.

The expectations are not clear. Until they are, this then is a clear risk for any business owner dealing in properties.

It's that simple.

I personally believe the expectations should be set in favor of parents being responsible in this way. Windows are danger items. They are for escape and other things, but that's just me.

Politically, I'll disagree with this ruling.

From a business standpoint, I'll see it for the risk item it now is and deal.

When I lived in NYC the "baby falling from window" story seemed to be an almost weekly event during hot summer months. All rental units in the city were required to have "baby guards" on the windows.... a grating or ironwork piece that covered usually the bottom third of a window, preventing most accidental tumbles. Management was only responsible if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, at no charge -- such baby guards.

Even with baby guards the system wasn't perfect. There were "idiots" who would move a tall dresser next to the window -- higher than the guard -- then leave a newborn unattended on top the dresser while "they only turned around for a moment" to look for a diaper or another kid.

Management deserves government guidelines that allows them to avoid liability situations, while still permitting the rentor to be as stupid as they wanna be!

Warning: This beverage may be extremely hot. Use with caution.

I knew it was hot, I ordered it that way, but regardless, they should have provided me with a lap guard for a situation like this.

BTW, anyone know how to clean coffee out of a Blackberry?

Take it apart and soak the thing in as pure of alcohol as you can. Blow the stuff out with one of those little compressed air cans.

Tdanner: Agreed on that score.

IN the ten years that I was a landlord. I got to know a lot of other landlords. Just about everyone I know. Took pride in there buildings or houses. I never knew of anyone putting up with a KNOWN safty hazard. Most took very good care of there units. It's just good business. Now when we go around with another round of it's your fault. sue,sue. Guess who gets to pay for all the improvements. The end user. Here's your rent increase Mr. & or Mrs or Ms. Renter.

Yeah, I agree with this mostly.

There are some out there that don't do this however.

Again, until some greater decisions are rendered, it's all about expectations. Right now, the expectation is that if something is a known hazard, doing something about it cuts liability.

Bump the rents a few bucks, deal, and wait to see how it all resolves.

That's exactly what I would do. Maybe even get the renters to do it with some minor league kick back or something.

I fear the real ugly part won't be landlords needing to just cycle through some new safety stuff. Insurance companies will profit from this, and leverage the need to do that for improved rates, requiring riders be purchased, or onerous safety measures be taken to incorporate this into the ordinary coverage.

That's what they always do. Bastards.

BTW, anyone know how to clean coffee out of a Blackberry?

Just hold it under warm running water then put it in the microwave for 1.5 minutes to dry!

1.) I don't drink coffee.

2.) I don't text and drive.

But, in the situation listed should starbucks be guilty of my own negligent actions which lead up to the supposed injury?? HELL NO! It's time for people in this country to start being held responsible for their own acts of negligence and stupidity! I also feel that if you sue someone and lose you should be held responsible for their legal fee's as well as your own. That in itself would put an end to 75% of the frivolous lawsuits.

You already are. The problem is in the collection of fee from the loser.

To be fair, this particular case happened in a two story duplex, not a high rise apartment building. I would agree that high rises should mitigate the liability where windows are concerned. Hotels to do it all the time.

Our rental would never have this happen as it's a one story ranch and there are no low windows. What bothers me is that because the negligence of the parent, they are awarded money. Not only should they not be awarded any money, they should have been charged for child endangerment.

And if we get down to it, shouldn't the builder of the property be sued for designing a second story window so low to the ground? How about the county government that issued final permits to occupy the home? Where does it end?

And if we get down to it, shouldn't the builder of the property be sued for designing a second story window so low to the ground? How about the county government that issued final permits to occupy the home? Where does it end?

Exactly.

It ends when the legal system wakes up and stops these kinds of frivolous lawsuits.

Either that or shoot all the lawyers! Hey, maybe Dick Cheney can take a few more lawyers hunting!!!

IMHO, the case of poor design isn't going to change.

As to the "where does it end?" deal, it might be something as simple as setting the right expectations and following them.

One thing that is hard to ignore was this management company being aware of the problem, and doing nothing.

This is different from somebody just having something happen for the first time.

There is also an amount of diligence required to provide a service for somebody too. In this case, it's a home.

The expectation, by default, is that it is a safe home.

Another expectation is that parents are competent.

Finally, another is being aware of a problem means doing something to prevent it.

That's the legal matter going on here.

Had the management company done anything in response to problems with the kids and the windows, this case would have been a lot more likely to boil down to stupid parent.

They didn't though, and that's the rub.

What we don't know yet is what the test is for doing enough is.

Does that mean a warning? Does it mean a safety device? Property meeting to let people know the risks? What?

IMHO, the lawsuit isn't frivolous because those expectations are not set! We should set them. This is an expensive way to set them, of course. On the other hand, dollars talk. Now's the time then.

Landlords are upset because now they are insecure. Stuff could happen, they could be liable. Insurers are gonna bump rates because they will be more likely to pay out.

Renters don't think this through yet, beyond "look at that bad management company", and that's not fair either.

I've no skin in the game on any side in this, other than I currently am a renter. It's a family deal though, so we have no worries on either side about this stuff.

The right thing to do, in response to the lawsuit is not say prevent additional ones, but to address the problem that opened the door for it to occur.

That's really how the system is supposed to work.

If it were me, faced with that judgment, I think I would contact a legislator and get this sorted out. Why not?

When it is clear what the responsibilities are for being a landlord, then it's easy enough to just do that with few worries. Insurers can see a more consistent boundary, and that helps them deal with rates and risk, because more is known. They like that.

Renters then see better environments, and have far less cause to sue.

One expectation I have is that people will sue because they can. I don't think that's gonna change anytime soon. Wish it were different, but it's not going to be.

So then, plugging holes when something like this crops up is best done sooner rather than later.

Re: The other questions.

If home builders see large incidents of accidents and such causing a lot of problems, they really need to not incorporate those design features into new homes. This happens through code reviews and improvements in design through data collected.

Any home builder building new homes only needs to practice the state of the art, or have an exception for artistic or historical purposes, and they have only the ordinary liability they would have in any case.

That's just standard engineering and best practices. That's true for anybody.

The government would only see litigation if they didn't meet their expectations as well. That would be knowingly allowing that kind of construction, being aware of the risks.

Maybe that happened. It's a question I would absolutely ask.

All in all, I just don't see this as completely frivolous.

The question being asked, "did the management company do what is reasonable to do, given awareness of the problem?" They didn't, and that's key here. If they had, there would very likely been no judgment, or insurance would have covered it, or some other thing.

So, determine what is reasonable, have a legal test for it, and these go away.

Betcha a cookie that is exactly what will happen as this moves through the courts first, then legislation second.

The real question is "did the parent do what a parent is supposed to do?" Supervise the child and make sure that the home the family resides in is made child proof? No on both counts.

Yes it is.

Problem is, the damage ended up being on the kid.

So here's another deal to sort out. Say the kid receives a big ass award from lousy parents. Will they pay, can they pay? No.

Does moving the kid from those parents serve the best interests of the kid?

Maybe, but most likely not.

And, if you ask the question, "Did the management company do all they could do?", that's a no as well.

Ugly.

Bottom line on this is, if you bring a broken kid into the court room, somebody is gonna pay, if it can be shown they didn't do what is reasonable to do to prevent the kid from being broken.

Expectations. That's what this is about.

All of those are good questions. Really, you don't like the one being asked of the management company, because that hits close to home.

Don't blame you, but it does not change the dynamics of this.

Spend a few hours of legal time, bump the rents a few bucks, and sleep easy while this gets sorted out.

Also, framing it as "child proof" isn't accurate in terms of this decision.

It's did they do what they could to prevent a known problem from recurring?

They didn't do that, and that's what got them paying out for this kid.

They could have done that, perhaps the kid would have still got broken, but they would not be on the hook, having met their burden.

It then falls on the parents, and those questions are just as ugly.

These guys left the door open, expectations were not set and met, and that's where the trouble is.

In my consulting / sales firm, we get into this expectations bit ALL THE TIME. It's easy to manage, but it must be managed.

It wasn't in this case. Bummer.

Misssing--Please explane how the management company failed.

It would be really great to have the case file to look at, but from the story there are two key elements that I find significant:

1. The management company had similar problems occur on their properties in the past, and they were aware of them occurring

,and

2. They did nothing in response to those.

IMHO, that's the whole case!

Again, from reading the brief story, and doing a bit of reading on tots falling out of windows, it's clear this is not an isolated problem. It's also clear there are activities that could have been performed to reduce the risk of it occurring.

These range from warnings to physical devices or components attached to or made part of the window.

Quite simply, nothing was done!

Had that company performed an analysis of the problem, the first time, and acted on that, I believe the parents case would have had a lot less merit, with the questions then being, "Did they do enough?", or "Did they do what is reasonable?".

Those are tougher questions! The parents would have had a harder time proving fault.

However, in this case the question appears to be, "Could or should they have done something?". Clearly the jury thought they could have.

It's really easy to get to fault from there.

Those things combine to then be a worry because everybody performing as a landlord is then wondering, if they might be subject to the same kind of liability.

And that's why I framed it as managing expectations. (this is what we do regularly)

Where expectations are properly set and managed, the question of liability does not occur very often. It is simply clear what needs to happen, and where it's clear, the only questions are then of competence and due diligence.

That's your standard liability. No getting around that one.

This decision clearly affirms the expectation that a landlord will deal with known problems. That's it!

Frankly, that's a reasonable expectation.

Given that, I would again spend a bit of money on some legal time to sort out the expectations and make sure they are managed between renter and landlord, so that the boundaries of liability are known.

If those boundaries, given the state of the property are not acceptable to either party, then it's time to sort that out too.

After this is done, posting up a case like this would be very difficult for the renter, and it's highly likely the property would be safer as a result, even if said safety comes from a greater awareness of the problems.

(A warning on the window, or at walk through time, would have address that in this case, potentially changing the mothers poor decision to a better one.)

I think the parents got lucky by having a jury that was filled with dipshits. Any normal person can see that while the management company could have done more, so could the parents, and the onus is on the parents.

This is why if I am ever in trouble, I would NEVER rely on a jury trial if I had the choice to have a judge look at the evidence and render a decision. I've served on a jury before and it scares me how stupid some people are.

This is just another case where you have a hurt child. And they need to find someone with deep pockets to hang the bill on. IMO.

Exactly!

And that's the failure! Had they done something, they would not have been such an easy mark. Whatever any of us thinks about it, a big ass judgment means: "FAIL", when there were options.

Having done anything, they could say, "what about the parents?", and follow that with "we did our part, see?".

There is a difference between doing more, and doing nothing too. The story says they did nothing.

Doing more, implies something BTW, and it brings "reasonable" into the discussion. Whole different ball game.

Doing nothing brings "why not?" into the discussion, and in the context of a hurt kid, that's ugly.

It's really ugly when the opposing side also says, "Well this did happen before, once or twice...".

A reasonable person would, after one or two incidents, do something, right?

Case closed.

I'm thinking there is a bit more to this story than we've been told. Maybe the landlord was a bit of a jerk in court and the jury picked up on it? Maybe the lawyer botched the case.

I'm thinking there is a bit more to this story than we've been told. Maybe the landlord was a bit of a jerk in court and the jury picked up on it? Maybe the lawyer botched the case.

I'd appeal this ruling. I'm betting management companies chip in to fight it as well.

I've ran this past a number of people. Some business minded, some just ordinary people.

"did nothing" carries a lot of weight in a civil court. There may be some personality issues involved here, such as the landlord being a jerk. If so, that's a failure also.

However, the very brief run down I posted just up thread would be potent. "did nothing", "knew about it", and "broken kid" = payment a very high percentage of the time.

Not being nice isn't criminal, but it is civil and has consequences. If that's really what happened, I would be surprised. However, I would also call that a life lesson. Nobody likes an asshole. Even if they happen to be right.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil court as well. The burden is lower, and "asshole" can and will impact a jury. That's just reality, agree or no.

Learned about newer windows and town houses. Many of them have "falling baby" screen warnings, for this very reason. The expectation isn't that ordinary people would understand this, it seems. I asked a few people living this way right now.

Some of those stickers came from the manufactures, some were produced by the property management people.

Finally, an interesting fact that is just that. On one deal where the construction was done poorly, the residents and town home management company HAD to sue to get payment from the insurance company. That's everybody, from the prime contractor, all through the subs.

The reason was to cap the payment to avoid further risk. No payment, until they (the insurance company), knows that's it. So a whole bunch of lawsuits had to occur, everybody agree that would be the end of it, then the money was released to address the poor work.

Seems there are lots of things that contribute to "frivolous" lawsuits.

Taken as a whole, the only rational response is to make sure we have, in fact, done something.

That's what the management company did not do.

A few bucks on stickers might have avoided this ruling. Interesting?

I think so.

And for what it's worth, I think the parents bear a LOT of responsibility for this. I don't think the judgment makes sense. Only detailing how it could have happened, and where the door was left open.

Apparently I wasn't the only one fired up about this story.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/02/letters_to_the_editor_childs _f.html

All 4 writers agree with me.

All four writers failed to address "had happened before on the properties in question", "and did nothing".

Those are significant elements to the case.

They were aware of the problem, and did nothing.

Additionally, they could have very easily done something.

Those are the money elements, unless something else is in the case transcripts.

Nope. They used common sense. And so should the jury. Instead they were swayed by an injured child and a slick lawyer.

And as far as I understand, it had NOT happened at this property before, but other properties managed by the company. I don't see how that makes this particular property an issue as each property is different.

Well, the company clearly understood that kids fall out of windows, and had experience with that.

Some window screen manufacturers are now including warning stickers.

And I completely understand you disagreeing with the ruling. I think the parent was a moron also.

However, had that parent seen a warning, maybe they wouldn't be a moron!

The company could have spent a few bucks on some stickers and addressed a known problem. It's not just once in a while. It's all over the place to the point where window screen manufacturers are making sure their butts are covered.

So then we get to reality. If you've got a hurt kid, and "knew about the problem", and "did nothing", it's gonna be a pretty strong close.

Right or not, that's how it will go.

So then, as the owner of that company, I would think, doing something would be better than doing nothing and potentially paying out an assload.

And do we know the properties were different? I didn't see that. Did you?

Many of my friends living in newer rental homes, have stickers and or safety devices on the windows. Those companies saw the problem, and did something.

They are not gonna pay out, are they?

If we don't have some kind of check, in terms of this stuff, the people that rent out properties are gonna do the absolute minimum. I'm not sure that's really the desired outcome. That goes for manufacturers too, engineers, etc...

What should happen is solid properties being rented out that meet safety standards. Clearly the standards for windows, or at least awareness of them, isn't optimal, or we wouldn't have kids falling out of windows enough to have manufacturers place stickers on them.

BTW: We have safety devices in bathrooms now, to prevent people from shock. We have those now because these kinds of things happened, and there was a strong incentive to just address that.

I don't see this as being any different.

Eventually, this will be a code thing, and greater compliance will be a matter of process when prepping a property to be rented in the first place.

So then, if you've got older property, it's probably smart to do something.

And that's what the company didn't do.

There has been enough action of this kind to make the expectation that parents are well educated and capable, not a reasonable one. That's sad, but it's the state of things right now.

They could be well educated and simply unaware of the limits of the screen. I think that's perfectly reasonable to expect. So then, do we just have kids falling out of windows, because it's their problem?

No way.

Taken from the manufacturers point of view, hearing these reports is easy. Detail, on the window, what it's capabilities are, and offer ones that are better. Done.

From the property owners view, a periodic safety review of the property is pro-active, and takes advantage of the better engineering. Done.

Parents are just people. The smarter ones are gonna keep up on things. There will be some education offered in various ways too. Eventually, the problem becomes more or less common knowledge and we've engineered a horrible problem away.

This requires that we all do something.

Which that company didn't do. BTW: I'm gonna tell my kids about that, so when they are parents, they know better. Maybe they will look at the sticker on the window, or just know that's pretty horrible, so don't go there.

When I was a kid, I remember the new safety plugs going in everywhere. Remember people bitching about having to do something then too. Lots of people got shocked. Now they don't. What's wrong with that?

Again, I'm speaking from the other side. I think I can make a pretty damn solid case. That's what the attorney did at a minimum. Who knows what the other elements were? However, it's simply not reasonable to ignore those and make a call on the ruling.

And that's been my point all along. I do a lot of work with product design companies. They go over this shit always. Why?

Because if they don't practice their profession to the state of the art, they are liable.

This is exactly what the burden should be for anyone renting property, just as it is for products and services.

We carry insurance against our professions to handle accidents, and errors and omissions. We don't carry it to save costs on stuff like this, otherwise the insurance companies bear the cost of others not leveraging the state of the art.

From what I've read on this topic (and I did so because I found it interesting), kids falling out of windows happens a fair amount. If it's common knowledge within the community of people who deal with properties, be they builders, landlords, insurers, or whatever, then it's enough to bring a burden to act on that as well.

This may or may not be something your average parent is aware of.

To me, that's significant. Unless there is other info in the case transcript, it seems the jury saw it that way as well.

(and of the product design people I spoke to, the above was roughly the response I got in terms of liability burden.)

Heck, as the insurer, I wouldn't write a policy without this being taken under consideration. Who would? It's a nasty problem. Just the kind of thing you don't want to pay out on.

Wonder why the management company insurer isn't paying out on this? Could it be because the management company did nothing?

It's worth asking.

Who's to say the management company was aware there was a window on the second story that posed a hazard? Still not buying your defense of this ridiculous case...

LOL!!!

Well, I really do think we need more info than the story contains. You've expressed your position and I've expressed mine. I've got no skin in this game, and would be more than ok with reversing and essentially saying, "bad call". There just isn't enough there for me to do that.

About the only thing I would add is that it's not really a reasonable expectation that people are going to completely understand their environment, and act on that understanding.

Stuff happens.

It's best that we have some dynamic in play to engineer away what we can over time.

This judgment is rough, but it's also going to prove to be a strong incentive for people to reconsider the current state of their properties.

Would be damn nice if there was something in there for the mother too. Of course, having to live with a broken baby, watching the kid grow up and be less because of stupidity is ugly too.

About as ugly as the judgment is, IMHO.

It probably would be good to pick through the transcript on this one. Bet there is some new info for both sides!