Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
I see, thanks for explaining. So the onus is on the landlord to prove the guilt of the tenant. That makes sense.
I am surprised that the valve is a non-issue as only the toilet clog is the proximate cause. If the toilet were clogged but the valve was functioning properly, there wouldn't be any flood.
Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
Quote:
Quoting
johnsamashin
I see, thanks for explaining. So the onus is on the landlord to prove the guilt of the tenant. That makes sense.
I am surprised that the valve is a non-issue as only the toilet clog is the proximate cause. If the toilet were clogged but the valve was functioning properly, there wouldn't be any flood.
The valve is an issue. if it were working properly there may not have been a flood either as the overflow would've happened immediately and potentially caught prior to overflowing or the quantity of the overflow would've been limited by the valve. Yes, you require the clog in either situation but the leaking fill valve in the tank is most certainly an issue. If the landlord cannot prove that the clog came from negligent use then the landlord on the hook.
Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
But with no clog it doesn’t matter how fast the water was running so
no clog- no flood
with clog- allows for a flood
in addition to what I’ve said, if you were not given notice the toilet continued to run it won’t be held against you. You are obligated to repair known defects. If you aren’t informed of a defect you won’t be liable for the results (in most situations. There are always exceptions).
Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
I disagree about the valve being a nonissue, it's most definitely an issue, just not the entire issue.
Re: Liability for Toilet Overflow/Faulty Valve
Quote:
Quoting
Mark47n
I disagree about the valve being a nonissue, it's most definitely an issue, just not the entire issue.
It’s a non-issue because it didn’t cause the overflow. In an otherwise non-plugged system it is irrelevent. Additonally, unless the landlord was informed it was present landlord is not likable for damages caused because landlord is not negligent for failing to repair the defect.
Given this statement:
Quote:
However, the tenant claims that he never noticed it to be faulty and never noticed that water would continue to run into the toilet.
landlord may not be negligent because nobody was aware the valve stuck.