Skip to main content

The Vancouver Island parents of a teenager are on the hook for more than $48,000 after their son's prank set off all the sprinkler heads across his school, causing extensive damage.

A newly released B.C. Supreme Court ruling rejected the claims of Cheryl and Kevin Dean that their son didn't mean to cause the damage in the 2012 incident, which occurred when he was 14.

According to the ruling, Carson Dean, now 17, attached a friend's padlock to a sprinkler head on the ceiling at Wellington Secondary School. The Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District took the Deans to court over the incident.

Story continues below advertisement

"I am sure that this is a very unfortunate result for the Dean family," Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick wrote in the ruling, which delves into the intent, consequences and dynamics of mischievous horseplay, as well as whether kids are accountable for damage caused by such actions.

But Justice Fitzpatrick also writes there may be a larger issue around a section of the B.C. School Act that says a student and their parents are liable if school-board property is destroyed, damaged or lost by the negligent or intentional act of a student.

"As an initial observation, I agree with the submissions of both counsel that this provision appears to be 'draconian' in the sense that it could have a disastrous financial effect on a young person and his or her parents," says the ruling.

However, Justice Fitzpatrick wrote that Carson should have known his prank would cause trouble and he and his parents were liable. The family has to pay $48,000, court-order interest, plus costs to be assessed.

"Carson knew that, by his attendance at school, he was not expected to destroy school property at his will and that it was reasonably foreseeable that, if he acted inappropriately, he could cause damage."

She adds: "In the case of Carson, he was well aware of the ability to play with things and break them."

After taking the padlock one day in January, 2012, Carson decided to attach it to the sprinkler head, jumping up and down to do so. The youth was about 5-feet-7 while the ceiling was eight-feet high.

Story continues below advertisement

According to the ruling, a friend warned Carson, "'This is a bad idea, you're being a dumbass.'"

The student targeted for the prank was standing aside because he feared the sprinkler would go off, according to the ruling which quotes him as saying, Carson's actions were not "incredibly ingenious."

During a jump, a red filament in the sprinkler head was disturbed and it began spraying water, leading to other sprinkler heads being activated. The school was evacuated and Carson confessed to a teacher about what he had done.

The parties in the case agreed that the amount of damages was $48,630.47.

One other point of agreement among the parties was that Carson didn't intend to activate the sprinkler and that his "thinking at the time, to the extent that you can call it thinking," was that his friend would have to get help from a school janitor equipped with a ladder to get his padlock.

But Justice Fitzpatrick notes that the key to actionable negligence is not the intention of the individual, but rather the breach of duty of care owed by a reasonable person, writes the Justice. "Therefore, it is concerned entirely with conduct and not at all with intent."

Story continues below advertisement

"I am satisfied that, if he had turned his mind to the matter, Carson would have realized that it was reckless to interfere with the sprinkler head and that it was reasonably foreseeable that he might interfere with it to the point of breaking and damaging it,"she writes. "I find that Carson 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 Deans and their lawyer were unavailable for comment.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies