In a tale of schoolyard pranking, a Canadian student's antics have left his parents with a close to $CAD50,000 bill for damages caused to his school. This story unfolded in the court room of the Honourable Madam Justice Fitzpatrick, a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

We have used pseudonyms in this article.

The padlock and the sprinkler

It was lunchtime on January 17, 2012, and outside of Wellington Secondary School the weather was brisk and close to freezing. Zach was a friend of Dave. They were evidently so close that a stray prank between them was not unusual. Carried away by this foolhardiness however, this prank was to be their undoing.

The notion was a simple one, and it's execution was devastatingly easy. Dave had somehow got hold of Zach's padlock - the same that any typical high schooler would have for his or her locker. Scott, a friend of Dave's, suggested that it might be funny to put the padlock on a metal bar on a nearby door. Dave did this, but was sprung by Ms Andrews, who chided him and told him to take it off. He did this, but having managed to keep the padlock, was undeterred.

Having avoided further punishment, and still wanting to get one up on his friend, Dave became more ambitious. He looked up, and jutting out from the ceiling was a sprinkler head. Zach noticed this movement too.

'I dare you', Zach said.

Dave knew exactly what sprinkler heads were and, more importantly, what they were meant to do. He knew what would happen when you activated them. Unfortunately, this did not stop him.

The sprinkler, was a lofty 8 feet high and Dave, was 5 feet and 7 inches tall. He needed to jump. He did so, swiping at the sprinkler, and by a fluke managed to hook, but not close, the shackle of the lock. This not being enough for him however, he jumped again, attempting to close the lock. At this point Scott, who was looking on, had a sudden realisation of maturity.

He said to Dave, 'this is a bad idea, you're being a dumbass'. His words, however, were not heeded and soon a crowd gathered. He jumped again, but missed.

Zach was at this point, standing to the side. He also knew what sprinklers were for, and what they did. He didn't want to be in the firing line if this one went off. But his actions would be in vain.

On Dave's final jump, he managed to hit the sprinkler, but not close the lock. Then, the inevitable happened.

The fire alarm sounded. The watchers fled. And minutes later, Dave - wet like the rest of his peers - was standing in the assembly area. In a panic, and a belated moment of maturity, Dave confessed to his teacher about what he had done.

But it was too late. The sprinkler system had gone off throughout the school. Equipment was damaged. Possessions were ruined. And water was everywhere.

Three years later, Dave found himself in a courtroom of the Supreme Court, with his parents called to answer for his misdeeds.

The $50,000 bill

It was now up to Madam Justice Fitzpatrick to sort out who would be liable for what, out of all of this soggy mess. The parties agreed about what happened. They agreed that $50,000 worth of damage had been caused. They agreed that Dave did not intentionally set out to set off the sprinklers. Who was to foot the bill, however, was not agreed.

Unfortunately for the parents, the British Columbia Legislature had decreed that they would not look kindly on intentional or negligent damage to schools. A law, passed in the late 1950s, said that if school property was destroyed or damaged by the intentional or negligent act of a student then that student's parents would be jointly and severally liable.

Dave's parents argued that Dave's act was not 'intentional' within the meaning of the law. Counsel for the School submitted otherwise.

With clear and lucid reasoning, Madam Justice Fitzpatrick sided with counsel for the School. On a plain and ordinary reading of the words of the law, Dave's parents were liable. They had to pay $50,000.  Let alone the associated legal costs.

Could this happen in Australia?

Often - justifiably often - we talk about a school's liability for its duty of care to students. A parent's liability for his or her students is a question not often asked. The question of whether this could happen in Australia - that is, whether a parent could be liable for the actions of his or her child - is one that depends on the circumstances.

But there are some illuminating points. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has said that this law appears to be 'draconian', acknowledging that it could have a disastrous effect on children and parents.

In Australia, the general position at common law is that a parent will not be liable for wrongs committed by their children unless the child was acting on the parent's behalf (as their 'agent'), with their parent's authority, or if it is established that the parent had not exercised proper control or care of their child.  If a child is known to its parents as having misbehaving tendencies, they will have a stricter liability in terms of exercising control over it.

Perhaps, however, the decisive factor in these cases will be something a little more uncertain - bad luck.