A typical fire protection sprinkler head in public buildings. In 2012 student on a dare, accidently set off the entire sprinkler system in his school causing tens of thousands of dollars damage. A court ruled he and his parents are responsible for costs.
Photo Credit: CBC

Very costly student prank

What started out as a silly student prank on a dare, will end up costlng him and his parents around $50,000.

In 2012, the then 14-year-old student in the west coast province of British Columbia had taken a small padlock from a classmate’s locker and was jumping up to try to hook it onto an overhead ceiling sprinkler head

The student at Wellington High School in Nanaimo on Vancouver Island, ended up breaking the small and fragile glass capsule, normally activated by heat from a fire, and set the sprinkler off.  This activated all the sprinklers in the school causing substantial water damage.

null
Although there are many varieties of commercial and industrial sprinkler heads, most are sctivated by heat which causes liquid in a fragile glass capsule to break which opens the water valve. the heads are usually interconnected so that when one goes off the whole system is activiated. © CBC

Although the boy admitted the action, in a civil trial the school district said his intentional act caused the damage. His parents argued it was not intentional, that the boy did not know how a sprinkler was activated and did not know it was fragile.

The case came under the School Act which holds that a student and a student’s parents can be held liable for damage to school property through negligence or an intentional action.

Although the incident happened two years ago, it made it’s way to the B.C. Supreme Court where the judge ruled against the family suggested that at age 14, the school shouldn’t need to keep students under constant supervision and the boy should have realized that his actions might have broken the sprinkler

Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick ruled, “It is clear that (the boy) did not turn his mind to anything in particular beyond playing a prank on his friend” she wrote.

“He certainly did not turn his mind to the risk involved in interfering with the sprinkler head. The question is whether, viewed objectively, he should have. The answer to that question here is conclusively yes … he should reasonably have foreseen in a general way that his interference with the sprinkler head could somehow cause it to ‘go off’ with the obvious consequences, even known to him, that water would spray. I find that (the boy) did not meet the standard of care expected from a child of like age, intelligence and experience and that he was negligent in the circumstances.”

The judge said the boy might have thought the only consequences would be for the school janitor and the classmate who owned the padlock, but “obviously, more dire consequences followed.”

She ruled Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District should be awarded damages of $48,630.67 plus interest and legal costs.

How fire sprinklers work

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

For reasons beyond our control, and for an undetermined period of time, our comment section is now closed. However, our social networks remain open to your contributions.