Hi there,

We rented a property in the Russian River area (CA). There was a hutch that was free-standing and stuck up above the stair case. When my 8 year old son came down the stairs, his foot hit the top of the hutch (that was not bolted to the wall) and it fell over. We called the renting agency right then and told the of the accident. It has been over a month and they have just now told us that they will be keeping our full $400 security deposit and that we owe an additional $170... is this something we are responsible for? Doesn't seem fair being that the hutch was number 1, not secure and number 2 was standing taller than the stair case. Please advise. Thank you!

You broke it, you pay for it.

Is $570 the repair cost or was it totaled and that is the value of the hutch? How do they know this?

If you rented the place furnished, then you are responsible for any damage to the furnishings. Unless you can prove the hutch was wobbly or negligently installed, you are responsible.

Large falling furniture, mostly bookcases, is a hazard known to ERs throughout the US, and LLs who rent to families with children take great risks in children being crushed. Your son wasn't, but I would try to negotiate.

Yes, they kept our deposit of $400 then said it was an additional $162 plus a $50 fee for delivery, as it wouldn't fit in her car.

Do any of you know where I can locate laws regarding this?

We have photos showing it was standing above the open stair case.

Are you still living there?

... When my 8 year old son came down the stairs, his foot hit the top of the hutch (that was not bolted to the wall) and it fell over. ...

I am having trouble picturing how an accidental glancing blow, by an 8-year old boy, can knock a piece of furniture over. It must have been very narrow and most of the items stored in it must have been heavy, toward the front (away from the stairway wall) and at the top. If my guess about how it was loaded is correct, that would support a conclusion that you were negligent. And, again if you loaded it that way, one could argue that you should have thought to secure the top with bolts or screws.

I don't see the fact that it was higher than the staircase being significant. When one goes up or down a stairway, normally one's feet travel in the same direction. Again, I am having difficulty picturing how his foot would have moved off to the side. Are there balusters in place? He didn't intentionally kick the hutch, did he?

I too thought of a 8 year old boy deliberately kicking it.
But I have also worked in the furniture biz, and bookcase fabricators either sold them with a bracket to attach to the wall at the top, or warned customers to do so.
Given that the LL has been saved from a large injury lawsuit, it seems to me only fair that she give back some of the deposit. In CA, we all know, courts lean toward the tenant.
I don't know of any law that says a LL has to keep furniture from falling over, but it would fall under a type of hazard, I think, if there were an injury.
Toddlers have been killed trying to climb bookcases and bringing them down on themselves.

I am sure you signed a lease or rental agreement, what does it say about damages tpo the property and/or furnishings?

My house has an open staircase, with a half wall representing the railing on one side. I have me 55" TV so that part of it goes above the railing. I don't see how that matters. I find it hard to imagine how his FOOT knocked it over, unless there was no railing. If the hutch was being used to enclose the staircase, then yes it should have been attached. But even an 8 yr old should know to use a railing going down stairs and the railing would have been on the opposite side of the stairs.

So as I see it, your option is to sue for deposit back, and fight a counter suit for the balance.

But as noted, it is an opinion as to what is reasonable and normal. I am with Scott, I feel this was caused by the renter and they are liable for the damage, obviously I would guess this has been there for a while with no damage.

A person walking down a set of stairs walks down on the stairs, not stepping ( and obviously kicking) outside the stair area.

So all you can do is pray that you get a more liberal judge who is renter friendly, not one who is more landlord friendly.

Yes, there were two narrow pole like things and that is what was sticking iup above the stairs. He was holding the railing, that's why his feet were so close to the edge of the stairs.

A 55" TV is much heavier than a narrow piece of wood. The fact that his one little 8 yr old foot was able to knock it over, clearly shows that the piece was not secure. Maybe hutch was the wrong word to use. Makes it sound heavy and impossible to tip over, without force. Lol

Thanks. My son in no way did it on purpose. We were there and saw it happen. I posted to this site because I thought I would receive legal advice, not opinions of who thinks my son did this on purpose. Lol

Thanks. My son in no way did it on purpose. We were there and saw it happen. I posted to this site because i thought i would receive legal advice, not opinions of who thinks my son did this on purpose. lol

We don't think he did it on purpose, we were asking whether he did; because I, for one, was having difficulty picturing the layout and how it could have happened. And by "did it", I didn't mean to suggest that he intended to knock it over, merely that his foot may have hit or brushed against it on purpose.

We gave you legal adivce: if the "hutch" was destroyed it appears to be due to the combined negligence of you and your son, and therefore you are liable for the replacement cost. One would have to be able to picture what happened before one could come up with a scenario under which you are not liable. And as yet I have been unable to do so.

For example, you say that "He was holding the railing, that's why his feet were so close to the edge of the stairs." But if one holds the railing with the hand nearest the open edge of the stairway, the feet would be pointed down the stairway, not toward the edge. Therefore, as I am picturing it in my mind, the feet might be a few inches from the abyss, but no part of the foot would be over it.


... the railing would have been on the opposite side of the stairs.

Apparently not in this case.

For $612 at issue, I don't anticipate a major court trial over this, but if I were trying a case where a lot more was in issue, I would definitely ask that the judge or jury were given an opportunity to view the scene. Could you post one of the pictures you say you have? A You-tube video of a recreation of the incident would really be nice. ;)

First, when posting a follow-up question or info, please use the Answer options at the bottom of the page rather than the Comments.

No one is saying your son did this on purpose, but its certainly possible he was more responsible for it then the negligence of the property owners.

I'm also having a hard time picturing the layout, so a picture might help.

As AK said, we have given you legal advice. Based on what you have told us we felt the chances of you winning a lawsuit over this to be very small is not non existent.

Your description of the railing, stairs, and 'hutch' is still just not showing. There are building codes about balluster spaces, probably 4" max in most areas, so that it should be difficult to even kick something through them. When you say it stuck up above the stairs, there had to be some sort of 3' high railing too. This is going nowhere.

It has been over a month and they have just now told us that they will be keeping our full $400 security deposit and that we owe an additional $170...Hello amy:

You keep asking for the law, but when our resident real estate LAWYER asked you the question that the law HINGES upon, you didn't answer...

The KEY (depending on your answer to Lisa's question), is the TIME frame. It's NOT the bannister... It's NOT your son. It's NOT whether it was secured.. It's NOT whether he did it on purpose.. It's NOT ANY of those things...

It IS whether they informed you WITHIN 21 days. That's IT. If they informed you WITHIN 21 days, the issue is about damage, costs, etc.. But, if they informed you a MONTH after you vacated, then the only issue is that it took a MONTH.

IF that is the case here, sue for your deposit back in small claims court. You'll win.

excon