How much should a neighbor have to pay to fix damage his
workers do to someone else's property?
During late fall and winter, work was being done on
several houses in a suburban neighborhood. The work involved trucks delivering
materials to the sites. Often, because many trucks were trying to deliver goods
at the same time, some parked in front of neighboring homes.
After several months of work, one homeowner noticed a
large rut on his front lawn, presumably caused by a large truck either parking
on the edge of his lawn or backing up over his lawn. He wasn't sure which of
his neighbors' work crews had caused the rut since he hadn't been home when the
damage occurred.
One of the neighbors having work done admitted that his
crew's truck had caused the damage and he would make good on repairs.
When spring came, the neighbor was true to his word and
repaired the damage by installing loam and sod on the lawn that had been chewed
up. The homeowner thanked his neighbor for the repair.
A few weeks later, however, as the irrigation system for
the homeowner's lawn was turned on for the season, it was discovered that the
work crew's truck had also broken some sprinkler heads. As the irrigation
company was replacing the heads, the homeowner was figuring out how to tell his
neighbor that he owed him $30 for each new sprinkler head. Before work on the
sprinklers was finished, however, the workers from the irrigation company
abruptly left.
The homeowner waited for the workers to return that day,
but they never did. When the owner of the irrigation company called back, he
explained that he and the foreman on the repair crew had had an argument and
the foreman walked off the job and quit. The irrigation company owner offered
to repair the sprinkler heads at no cost since the homeowner had taken the day
off of work to be there for a job that wasn't completed.
The homeowner still had to decide whether or not to ask
his neighbor to pay for the broken heads. The neighbor had, after all,
acknowledged that his worker's trucks caused the damage. Regardless of whether
or not the homeowner had to pay for the repairs, they still had to be done and
he would need to take more time off work to supervise the job.
Would it be wrong to seek the $60 from his neighbor for
what it would have cost to replace the sprinkler heads?
Yes, it would be wrong to do so. The right thing is to
accept the irrigation company's offer and not seek payment from the neighbor
for something being provided gratis. Trying to turn the irrigation company
owner's good faith effort into an opportunity to make some extra cash off the
neighbor - who'd already repaired the homeowner's damaged lawn - for his
trouble holds no water. The fact that he'd have to take another day off work
can be chalked up to the cost of homeownership.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School.
Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net.
(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNECONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
2 comments:
Agreed. The neighbor could have said nothing and did nothing so he must be an OK guy.
Alan Owseichik
Greenfield, Ma.
That the homeowner wants to be reimbursed for a loss he did not have shows he has questionable ethics. That he did ask The Right Thing for advice is a step towards recognition that his ethical standards need some improvement.
Post a Comment