If the landlord did in fact have the temperature set higher than the building code.
and the whole reason you dont turn a water heater up so high is to prevent incidences like this from happening. He is at fault. He broke the law. She didn't. Very simple case. If it's proven he did break that law. It's a shut case.

Even if she didn't tell the landlord, who's to say she knew it was going to be THAT HOT THAT FAST before? It doesn't matter if she told the landlord or not, just as DbG said, the landlord broke the law by having the hot water heater up so high in the first place.

Yes, it could still be a government moocher trying to get money, and yes it was stupid of her to not keep an eye on the tap water to make sure it wasn't going to scald her child. And yes, she may very well be taking advantage of the situation, but the fact still remains the landlord DID break the law by having the hot water heater up so high.

Since when is it a fact that the landlord broke the law? Excuse me, but unless you're the attorney representing the plaintiff you have no idea whether or not any laws were broken. Actually, even if you were the plaintiff's attorney you would still have to prove that the water was hotter than allowed by law. If this were clearly one party or another's fault it wouldn't be in litigation.

I love it when people who have watched too much "legal" TV just use terms like "shut case" and "the fact is" when you have no idea what the facts of the case even are.

You have no idea where I get my information from, now do you? NO. So before you start making judgments on ME thinking that you know how I got my legal opinion on something, don't even ATTEMPT to judge me. And by the way, it's NOT from watching too much legal tv. Maybe I don't know all the facts about this particular case, but it's simple to check the hot water heater to see where the temperature is, and just because you don't want to see it, there is a legal limit to how high the hot water heater can be, and if the landlord had it higher, there is fault with the landlord. Period.

Get off your damn high horse already. You're not the only person in this place with "legal intelligence".

HAHAHA! This is awesome. I never thought I would be involved in forum dramaz.

You are right on something. It is simple to check the hot water heater to see how hot the water is. The woman in question did not do so. Had she done it, her child wouldn't have been burned and she wouldn't be suing her landlord.

Don't make dumb judgments of people you don't know and you might never be involved in forum drama again.

Some people don't know how to take care of a hot water heater. Maybe she's never had a reason to look at it. She really shouldn't have had to, the landlord should have checked it before she moved in.

There is LOTS of fault in this case, hers for neglecting to pay attention (and yes, it very much was stupidity on her part that it occurred in the first place), and the landlord's for neglecting to do his own job (because if he hadn't have neglected to monitor the hot water heater like he was supposed to, this wouldn't have happened).

Unfortunately, it originates with the landlord's "inability" to keep the hot water heater at a temperature that was acceptable. Unless, of course, she fiddled with it and made it higher than it was supposed to be, but good luck proving that eh? I was simply stating, from the limited information I DO know about this case based on the limited information you've been able to provide, the fact IS that there is a fault with the landlord in not keeping the hot water heater within legal limits.

You don't know that the landlord did anything wrong. Because no-one has said that the temperature was checked and shown to be too high. It is perfectly possible for a child to be scalded by hot water even with a perfectly well serviced boiler. The landlord may well have done nothing wrong. You're making assumptions.

True, true. I did make that assumption. I admit my fault in that.

Have you checked your hot water heater's temperature setting lately?

The woman was not the one that illegally set the water heater high than the building code.

I've set mine up high before, it will burn the hell out of you.

He broke the law, a law that is in place to prevent exactly what he is responsible for.

If you want to be a lawyer, the golden rule is the actual law, not your opinion on what makes a good mother.

Besides, she said she checked the water, that'
s not even the issue. The issue is it's coming out of teh faucet to hot, because the landlord illegally set it up higher than the building code.

I'm only going to say this once: IF in fact, the landlord turned up the water heater higher than what's allowed, yes, he broke the law and will probably have to pay damages.

HOWEVER, I don't know that. The woman's lawyer doesn't know that. All we know right now is that the water was hot and the child was burned. The water temperature is a contested issue and I imagine the plaintiff's attorney will send an investigator or an engineer to evaluate the water temperature.

I already said IF, has in IF that is true, and that should be the only focus.

Because IF that is true, he broke the law and is at fault.

He could have easily set the temperature back down now.

So I would grill his ass and get him to confess, by saying we already have proof you did, and witnesses.

because IF he did break the law, than all bets are off, and he will lose the case.

You have to know that first.


answer my question please, when was the last time you checked the temperature on your water heater? you haven't, why should you. There would be no reason for you to, unless something was wrong. someone changed the setting. And this happens all the time, and landlords get sued because of it. They lose, because laws are in place to prevent what happened.

You assume the defense lawyer doesnt know this. why would you? It's a very popular type of case. look it up
so you better focus on the actual law, and IF it was broken or not. Others wise you're just playing morality police without the facts.

I don't think she claimed that there wasn't a legal limit to how hot the water heater can be. I'd guess as a lawyer she's probably well aware of the fact that such a law exists. And I'd guess that the lawyer representing the mother would be getting the temperature checked.

You dont know that facts either. but you're fully prepared to crucify this lady. like a typical ambulance chaser.

Yes it would appear she has been silly, if you are topping up the water as it is cold you do it carefully. And don't for goodness sake allow the child to touch the water! I think she is silly, if she has 3 children she should know better. Simple as.

This reminds me of when I was about 13ish and I used to like my showers HOT! I would turn it all the way to the hottest it would go. Anyways, my mom had the repairman come to our house to fix something and he messed with the hot water heater and I guess he turned up the temperature on it. So that night I go into take a shower and turn it all the way to hot, and no I didn't check the temp before I got in, and I burned the hell out of me. The guy didn't tell my mom that he messed with the temp and it was really high to what he turned it too. Obviously, my mom was pissed but what could she do? I was old enough to know better than to just jump in. And I wasn't 17 months old either. Thàt woman sounds like she is just trying to make a quick buck and why isn't cps looking into this if the baby got burned badly enough? I jumped in that shower and back out and didn't get serious burns so if that baby did then they had to be in the water for quite some time.

Oh lord, that happened to my sister as well! ;D
We noticed our hot water was running out really fast, so my dad turned it up a bit, so that we wouldn't have to use as much or something like that.
My sister came home after we had all gone to sleep and I don't think she checked the water and all I remember is hearing a scream and her ripping the shower curtain down to get the hell out of there ;D

even if the water is set to what ever legal temp it should be, it can still burn you, maybe not seriously but enough to hurt you. even if she had just turned the hot water on to add more warm water she should have tested it before she let it touch her child. if she wins, her baby was still burned because she was too dumb/careless/uneducated/preoccupied to check the water. accidents do happen, kids get hurt, its life but you have to be responsible for your mistakes, dont go blaming other people. and one other thing, why does someone who is on public aid have 3 kids at the age of 21??? one baby, ok it was a surprise/the condom broke/bc failed whatever get public aide, better yourself get a job. not have 2 more and keep collecting.

If the landlord did set the temperature to high, he broke the law, and she has a case. If he didnt, she has no case.
Everything else has no value in whether or not the landlord broke the law. That's what the case is about. It's all that matters. did the landlord break the law. yes, then he is at fault. no, then she has no case. Opinions on what makes a good mother, is a distraction from the actual case, and doesnt even matter.

It's not about if the landlord broke the law. It's about PROVING that he broke the law.

Your argument assumes that it's possible to prove that the landlord set it high. I don't know much about the heaters involved, but I doubt they have a memory, and it could easily have been turned back down since then. So if there is no evidence, then I'd guess it's not quite so simple.

Even if she'd turned the tap on to run some extra hot water in, she still should have had the baby well away from the tap, and checked the temperature of it herself. Even if the heater wasn't set too high, it still could have been hot enough to scald. And as we do not know the extent of the baby's injuries, we cannot make assumptions about how hot it was. That is for the court, not us.

it's her job to find out. but she said she isn't going to find out. and that she will wait and see if the defense can.

nice lawyer,lol

I'd want my money back!

omg. you are soooo right!

Madeline! listen to this guy. he has so many good points! well, ok--he only has one. but it's the best point in the book! of course he's right and of course this is going to be the end-all-be-all point of your case!

my thing is. that child was in long enough to get burned. like hollie pointed out--she knew it was way too hot and she jumped RIGHT out when that happened to her. granted this is only a little baby but it makes me wonder if she had been left unattended for even a mere a second and the mom doesn't want to admit fault for it. i mean--one would notice if the water was too hot wouldn't they? maybe not someone who lacks common sense though. one would check to make SURE the water wasn't too hot either. i think the child was left unattended myself and as people with children or even people who have watched children know that things can happen in a split second. she would have known way before hand that the water was hot and pulled her child RIGHT OUT.

apparently the baby was already in the bath, and the water was to cold. so she turned on the hot water to warm it up a bit and scolding hot water came out and burned the baby.

If the baby received medical treatment for the burns, that proves the temperature on the water heater's thermostat was set to high. And the landlord would be at fault. Because they broke the law.

Our lawyer coming into this is completely unprepared for this case, and lacks the commonsense. and probably didnt even check out how the many other exact same very popular cases all turn out. Our lawyer gives us very little information about the case. which makes me wonder, who put them in charge of a case they know little to nothing about. My bets on te lady. Our bloop lawyer is unprepared, and hasnt done their homework

well i'm sure she knows a lot more that she isn't telling us because she's NOT supposed to.

The mother is suing because the mother says the landlord had the tempt set to high.
our lawyer has admitted that they dont even now if it was or not.
yet, the slumlord's lawyer is ready to crucify this young girl.
and has no idea whether or not the young lady has a case or not.
good mother bad mother, who freaking cares, the case is NOT about that.
The case is about whether or not the tempt was set to high, according to the law.
A law in place that prevents what happened from happening in the first place.
Sounds to me lie this young lady has a very good case.
and our clueless lawyer does what typical lawyers do, they divert your attention from teh actual case, and have everyone all ready to crucify someone based on they get paid to do so. and the real facts what the case is about, doesnt even seem to matter. rather sad if you ask me.