Am I liable for the damage to a TV when a video gamer controller accidently slipped out of my hand

Please note that I'm not licensed in New Jersey, and each state's laws on matters like negligence and property damage claims vary somewhat.

However, in general, a social invitee on someone's property is liable for property damage caused by his own negligence while there.

What's that mean?

We all have a duty to use "reasonable care" -- typically the "same degree of care as would be used by any reasonable person under the same circumstances." When we fail to use due care, that's called negligence. When our negligence directly causes damages to someone else or their property, we may be legally responsible for the damages.

Here, the argument would be over what kind of care ought to be used by someone operating a video game. Many of the Wii games involve sharp, sudden movements. THAT'S WHY THE GAME CONTROLLERS COME WITH A WRIST STRAP, right? It's also pretty foreseeable that people using the game will become sweaty with exertion.

(a) If the strap was missing, or had been broken, that would tend to suggest that the game owner was at fault, if anyone.

(b) If the strap was available and in good condition but simply wasn't being used by the guest, that would tend to suggest that the person using it was at fault.

(c) If the controller flew out of the guest's hand even though the strap was being used, then that's a harder case. Sometimes genuine accidents happen even though everyone is using "reasonable care," and this arguably was one such occasion. It might have been entirely reasonable for the guest to expect that the strap would prevent accidents of this sort so long as he or she was using the strap properly. On the other hand, it can also be argued that part of using "reasonable care" includes holding on tightly to the controller, either with or without the strap. It's hard to judge which is the more persuasive as between these two arguments -- a perfect situation for a compromise and a splitting of the costs of repairing or replacing the TV.

If the owner IS getting a new TV, it's very likely that it's more valuable (as a new, just-purchased item) than the TV that was broken (which, by definition, was used), even if it's the exact same model. Obviously the guest ought not have to pay to upgrade the owner's TV; the amount that the guest ought to have to pay should be capped at some smaller percentage of the original cost of the TV or the cost to replace it, perhaps depending on how old the TV already was and what it's estimated useful life was.

All in all, I'd suggest that the parties try to find a compromise somewhere between 25% and 75% of the cost of a replacement TV of comparable quality (assuming that makes more sense than getting the old TV repaired), with the difference depending on the strap.

I agree with Mr. Dyer's answer. You would be liable if you were not wearing the strap around your wrist.


Best of luck!