OMG - THIS is why you follow code
- Thread starter nEWRfire
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
jetsam
Minister of Fire
It doesn't need to be a complex situation for the OP either. He presumably has the option of just turning the thermostat up and not burning the stove until he moves out. That's perhaps not the kindest possible thing for the next tenant who may know nothing about stoves, but it's not OP's job to force the landlord to be safe or reasonable.
Honestly, it's HER house which insurance will probably not want to pay for when it burns... She would probably care if she understood the situation.
Honestly, it's HER house which insurance will probably not want to pay for when it burns... She would probably care if she understood the situation.
I wouldn't pay 1/2. If a person is going to rent they have responsibilities, one of which is insuring appliances are safe, installed correctly and up to code. Renters come from all levels of mechanical abilities and can't be expected to know, or required to pay, for inadequate installs or construction. I would say that if you make the choice to pay I'd get a release of any further liability because you are accepting 1/2 the responsibility. I would also get a certified sweep in to document the situation to prevent further claims.
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
Don't pay anything. Landlord is responsible. They need to realize that if they are going to offer something so dangerous as a woodburning appliance in a rental property, that they need to create a situation that does not put your life at risk. This includes handing you the manual to the stove and instructing you very specifically on how to operate it. A safe install seems like it should be a given, I'm not sure even that less than minimum requirement was met, but that is for someone knowledgeable and physically present to determine.
Sprinter
Minister of Fire
Paying half might be construed as admitting some responsibility in court or by the insurance company, which the OP certainly IMO has none, if it comes to that. Fortunately, the damage seems minimal, but the principle is the same. It's not unusual to use that kind of tactic to shift blame.
I've been a landlord and a renter, and I would not pay a dime on this. In fact, if the OP has suffered any damages, he should be putting himself in a position to sue the landlord if necessary.
FWIW, I don't understand some of the blame being put on the OP. He is blameless for reasons already stated by others. Let's be more respectful of our members, especially the newer ones that are only here for objective advice.
Last edited:
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
If the OP is moving out in a month there may be concerns about a damage deposit getting reimbursed.
Sprinter
Minister of Fire
Only if they can prove OP's fault, and it would be their burden of proof. However, I totally understand in this case that the OP wants to keep peace in the interim. I think he would be okay that way, but sometimes you do have to be pragmatic and swallow some pride. I imagine we've all been in similar situations. I hate, hate to be taken advantage of like I believe he is, but he needs to do what he believes is in his best interest. At least this is a low damage situation, but when principle is involved, sometimes it's hard to swallow that.
I'm sure there have been tort cases for less. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the insurance company finding more damage and going after the OP since he will have "admitted" partial responsibility.
Last edited:
Similar threads
