NEED LEGAL ADVICE! Who is liable and to which extent?

Question

Neighbor has a pool, with an attached pool cover across the top. The residing children invited the neighbor children over to play. The residing children told the visiting children it was "fun" and "okay" to run across the cover. This kind of "play" occured during three seperate visits. The first visit the parent of the residing family was present and supervising this play. The second visit a parent was present but no supervision around the pool. The third visit (The visit the pool cover tore) There was no parent home or supervising. It was on that visit the pool liner eventually tore due to the burden of children running across the top. Upon discovery the residing parent has confronted the neighbor parents and is demanding full compensation.
The pool liner was ripped apx. 2 feet. Since then the cover has remained atop the pool and over a sweeper and has since ripped an additional 7 feet.
1.Who is liable?
2.To which extent?
3.Would this be a claim for Home owners Insurance?

The residing children were also running across the top of the cover. And the visiting childrens parents did not know that kind of play was ever occuring until after the damage was reported by residing parent.

This took place in Los Angeles, Calif.


Editors Note: I apologize this question was delted and re asked. It was messed up in the process of adding additional information and was necessary to re-post.

Answer 1

The resident of the pool home are liable. You say they are "residing" and that infers they do not own the home. If they are homeowners, it may or may not be covered depending upon their policy. If they are just residers, their rental policy may or may not cover it depending upon their policy. The neighbors are not liable. Everyone should thank God no one slipped beneath the tear and drowned. There is no way the "residers" can collect from the parents of the visiting children. Nor could the homeowners if that is what they are.

Answer 2

If the residing parents allowed "all" the children to play this way, they should be liable. They are the *cough* adults and should set the ground rules so if they don't do that, why should anyone else pay for their stupidity?

And even if the neighbors paid something, they shouldn't have to pay for the whole thing since the other kids were involved in this, too. Plus, who knows how many times the kids who lived there ran across that when no other kids were present?

I think the neighbors could easily win this one in court. I sure wouldn't pay them a dime since they allowed the kids to play on it.

Answer 3

I doubt homeowners would cover it. The owner of the pool is responsible to replace it. It was unsafe & irresponsible to allow children to run on cover of pool. Someone was not thinking of the potential harm to a child caught under the pool cover. Children should be watched by responsible adults & unfortunately not everyone here was being responsible.

I, personally, would not even offer an apology. It would not have been torn if the children had not been taught to do it & then allowed to run across the cover. They are lucky it is not a manslaughter case instead of a torn cover.

Answer 4

I'm pretty sure CA has stringent "attractive nuisance" laws - the residing parents are lucky the neighbor parents aren't suing them for reckless endangerment.

That could so easily have been a tragedy. Both sets of parents should be grateful no child got caught beneath the liner and drowned and should take steps to ensure the children's access to the pool is restricted; and the residing parents should buy a new cover.

Answer 5

Children were playing unsupervised, ....and something got broken...that is the basics.

The adult home owners had whitnessed and condoned this behaviour before, so it is not unreasonable to believe it would continue to occur without their presence. The damage is likely caused from multiple children running accross over time. The straw is not responsible for breaking the camels back....the moron who allowed too much straw is responsible. In this case the moron is the adults who allowed the running accross the pool to begin with.

Not to mention, they actually opened themselves up to the possiblity of a liable suit, if one of the children had gotten hurt on their property.

They assumed all risk...