ExpertLaw.com Forums

Liability for Toilet Overflow Due to a Faulty Valve

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 05-02-2018, 04:54 PM
    johnsamashin
    Liability for Toilet Overflow Due to a Faulty Valve
    My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: Washington

    Hi, this is a variation on a question that has been asked previously but with a distinct detail. I happened to walk by the rental and noticed water running out from underneath the door. After notifying the tenant, who was not at home, I entered the apartment and found it flooded with about 2 in of standing water. The cause of the flooding was from a clogged toilet and a faulty toilet tank valve that did not close properly. The tenant had not been home for about 10 hours and the clog must have occcurred right before they left.

    • The plumber determined that there was a clog in the pipe leading out from the toilet. This was before joining any other pipes that could have become clogged from other toilets/drains in the building. So I'm assuming we can be certain the tenant is responsible for the clog.
    • However, the flooding only occurred because the toilet tank valve was faulty. The plumber determined that it got stuck about 50% of the time. However, the tenant claims that he never noticed it to be faulty and never noticed that water would continue to run into the toilet. While it's highly unlikely that the valve became faulty just that day when he happened to clog the toilet, I have no way of proving that it had been faulty beforehand.
    • In any case the tenant never notified me of a faulty toilet, bad valve or clog.


    How can liability for the damages be determined in this case? Tenant claims I am liable because the toilet valve was faulty and it is the landlord's duty to make minor repairs. I feel that the valve was almost certainly faulty before that time and the tenant failed to notify me about this, thought I can't prove that. Regardless we know the tenant caused the clog.

    Also, as the apartment was unlivable for 2 weeks while repairs were made, is the landloard required to return rent to the tenant for that period? Or if the fault was the tenant's then landlord does not need to reimburse?
  • 05-02-2018, 06:14 PM
    adjusterjack
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Knowing and proving are two different things. We can talk negligence theory until the cows come home but it won't change the reality.

    I was a landlord for 20 years with three rental houses. I can guarantee that you'll never get a nickel from the tenant for any water damage to your property so you might as well have your insurance cover the damage and be done with it.

    If you want to apply his security deposit to your deductible, you're welcome to do that and hope you don't get sued for it because if you end up in court over this you really have no proof of anything.

    I don't know how long you have been a landlord, but you should know that this is your reality when it comes to damage.

    And, no, you don't have to return rent to the tenant. If he had a renters policy it would cover his living expenses while he was away from the rental. If he didn't have a renter's policy, it's on him.
  • 05-03-2018, 05:48 AM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Quote:

    Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    And, no, you don't have to return rent to the tenant. If he had a renters policy it would cover his living expenses while he was away from the rental. If he didn't have a renter's policy, it's on him.

    It's not that simple. Under a lease, a landlord has a duty to provide the tenant with habitable premises. If the unit is uninhabitable for reasons that were not caused by the tenant, the landlord may very well have a duty to provide a rent abatement or alternate premises pending repair.

    If I were the landlord I would wait and see what the tenant requested and then pass any request along to the insurance company.
  • 05-03-2018, 11:26 AM
    johnsamashin
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Thank you for your responses. Let me clarify that I am interested in knowing what I should do (according to the law) not what I could do (like not return the deposit and hope I don't get sued).

    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    If the unit is uninhabitable for reasons that were not caused by the tenant, the landlord may very well have a duty to provide a rent abatement or alternate premises pending repair.

    That sounds reasonable to me, but in this case I believe the tenant caused the damage. I can prove they clogged the toilet but I can't prove they were aware of the faulty valve. So in this specific case can I reasonably deny rent abatement?

    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    If I were the landlord I would wait and see what the tenant requested and then pass any request along to the insurance company.

    The tenant is requesting I return rent for the two weeks the residence was uninhabitable. I have already submitted everything to the insurance which has covered repair of the residence but not unclogging/fixing the toilet/drain (>$1000). My approach was I'll swallow the repair but the tenant will swallow the fact he had to live with a friend for two weeks. Initially the tenant was ok with that but now is requesting the rent refund.
  • 05-04-2018, 03:12 AM
    Mark47n
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    How are you planning on proving that the tenant caused the clog? Are you planning on retrieving the object of the clog? Was the object that caused the clog something that may be flushed typically or what?

    The valve inside the toilet is your responsibility.
  • 05-04-2018, 01:54 PM
    jk
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    You say the tenant caused the clog but it isn’t as simple as that. What did the tenant do to cause the clog? If they used the toilet as one normally would they have done nothing negligent and as such, not liable for damages resulting from the clog. If they stuffed a baby blanket down the toilet they’re liable for everything.

    Toilets running aren’t always noticed. They can run quite quietly and wouldn’t be noticed unless one happened to see water movement in the toilet when initiating use....

    but not too many people really pay that much attention to the water in their toilet.

    I notice you said unclogged/repaired the drain. If repair refers to anything other than using a plunger or maybe a snake to dislodge a clog, there is a good possibility there was an issue within the sewer line that caused the clog. It generally takes a lot to clog a sewer drain. A large diameter pipe is used all the way from the toilet to the final connection in the street or septic tank. More often clogs such as this are when homeowners discover they have a collapsed line or there are root intrusions.

    So, what did they do that was negligent that caused the clog?
  • 05-07-2018, 10:27 AM
    johnsamashin
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Thanks JK. The plumber repaired meaning they unclogged the toilet with a snake. According to the plumber he encountered resistance on the segment of the drain pipe that runs from the toilet bowl to the main drain pipe of the house. I.e. there was something big enough to clog the large diameter pipe and it was located in the section of pipe coming directly from the toilet and not from any other location in the house. The tenant denies that they placed anything in the toilet that could have clogged it. However they also had friends over that night. In my opinion it's pretty clear here that they clogged and are responsible for the clog. What isn't clear is who is responsible for the valve not working and leading to the overflow.
  • 05-07-2018, 10:37 AM
    Mark47n
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Quote:

    Quoting johnsamashin
    View Post
    Thanks JK. The plumber repaired meaning they unclogged the toilet with a snake. According to the plumber he encountered resistance on the segment of the drain pipe that runs from the toilet bowl to the main drain pipe of the house. I.e. there was something big enough to clog the large diameter pipe and it was located in the section of pipe coming directly from the toilet and not from any other location in the house. The tenant denies that they placed anything in the toilet that could have clogged it. However they also had friends over that night. In my opinion it's pretty clear here that they clogged and are responsible for the clog. What isn't clear is who is responsible for the valve not working and leading to the overflow.

    But your opinion is self-serving, that's why it's not admissible in court. You have PROVE that they did something to clog pipe. How far did the snake go in? Are you talking 2'? 5'? 20? how far?

    Having friends over is hardly definitive, either.

    As to the valve: the valve in the toilet tank can stick open but a clog in the sewer pipe won't cause that, that's simply a faulty valve and is unquestionably the landlords responsibility as it pertains to the mechanisms inside the toilet.

    Both of these events conspired to create one hell of a mess but the clog is still likely your problem, not the tenants. You'll have to pony up.

    The trials and tribulations of being a landlord. It's why I'm not, in spite of having had the opportunities.
  • 05-07-2018, 11:11 AM
    jk
    Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
    Quote:

    Quoting johnsamashin
    View Post
    Thanks JK. The plumber repaired meaning they unclogged the toilet with a snake. According to the plumber he encountered resistance on the segment of the drain pipe that runs from the toilet bowl to the main drain pipe of the house. I.e. there was something big enough to clog the large diameter pipe and it was located in the section of pipe coming directly from the toilet and not from any other location in the house. The tenant denies that they placed anything in the toilet that could have clogged it. However they also had friends over that night. In my opinion it's pretty clear here that they clogged and are responsible for the clog. What isn't clear is who is responsible for the valve not working and leading to the overflow.

    Sorry but nothing is clear based on what you’ve posted. As I stated before, who caused the clog is no more important than what actually caused the clog. To win in court you must prove your case. So far you cannot prove the tenants negligence or intentional acts caused the clog. Obviously the clog was caused due to the tenants use of the toilet. That does not mean they were negligent in their use if the toilet and as such, they would not be liable for the flood damages. The valve issue is a non-issue as it was not the proximate cause of the flood.

    In addition, with nothing more than a snake being used, you can’t prove there isn’t a deficiency in the plumbing that was the underlying cause for the clog. For example; maybe a former tenant dropped a toothbrush down the toilet. Under typical use it never caused enough obstruction to cause a problem but that night where there were more users of the toilet and as such more toilet paper used. That could result in a more complete blockage and as such, caused the overflow.

    Your simple argument that the tenants caused the blockage does not make them make them liable for the damages. The blockage must be due to negligence or malfeasance for them to be held liable.

    If the plumber didn’t pull up any of the material causing the blockage, and it is a foreign material, I suspect you won’t win this case.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved