QLD Compensation for Damages to Another Student's Laptop?

[tirri98]

A question I have been asked for education purposes:

In this scenario at a boarding school with two underage students - who is at fault? And should B pay A compensation?

- Student A was on their bed (in their dorm at school), with their laptop on the edge of their bed (fairly close).
- Student A begins to wrestle with another student (Student C).
- Student B decides to join in, and Student A is now sitting on their laptop.
- Student B causes Student A to fall off the bed, dragging their laptop with them.
- After inspection, the laptop's screen is broken.

The question:

- Is Student A at fault for their laptop being on the edge, consensually wrestling with another student near their laptop, and for sitting on it, and therefore should cover the cost of repairs themselves? Or is Student B responsible for the wrestling and should pay for it?

- How can you tell that by sitting on it Student A did not break it?

- Who would win in this court case?


Thanks very much.

 

[Rod]

Tell us what you think and what the authorities are.

 

[tirri98]

Tell us what you think and what the authorities are.

What do you mean?

 

[Rod]

You supply what you think the answer is and we'll let you know how correct it is. Sometimes in law there is no one correct answer.

 

[tirri98]

You supply what you think the answer is and we'll let you know how correct it is. Sometimes in law there is no one correct answer.

Student A was partly at fault because their laptop was on the edge - and they were also wrestling with someone else. So if student B joined in then how is it their fault considering student A had essentially consented to wrestling?

I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Rod]

Wrong way to approach the problem.

What unit is this - Torts?

If so, look at all the possible torts - Trespass to goods, nuisance (?), negligence. At this early stage you are probably only looking at trespass to goods (chattels)

What are the elements? then address each element. What are the important cases? Is there any doubt what caused the damage? Is intention a necessary element of the tort?

You have deliberately not been given enough information so you argue both ways.