You be the judge.

The Broken TV

Sam's side

My roommate had some friends over while I was away for the weekend. I was completely fine with that and we've both had people over before. While they were drinking, one of his friends accidentally knocked over my TV and smashed the screen. The TV was mine and I bought it about three years ago for $1,200. It worked perfectly before this happened. My roommate immediately apologized and said he'd sort it out. But when I sent him the link to the current equivalent model, which costs around $1,100, he said there was no way he was paying that much. He offered me $400 because he says my TV was already three years old and therefore wasn't worth anything close to $1,100 anymore. I don't think that's the point. I had a perfectly working TV before his friends came over, and now I don't have one. If I want the same kind of TV again, I have to spend around $1,100 because of something that happened at a gathering he hosted. I also don't think I should have to chase his friend for the money. I didn't invite that person into our apartment, my roommate did. As far as I'm concerned, it's my roommate's responsibility to deal with his friend and reimburse me.

Zara's side

I completely agree that I'm responsible for helping replace the TV, and I never said otherwise. What I disagree with is paying $1,100 for a brand-new television when the one that broke was three years old. If someone damages a three-year-old car, they don't owe you the price of that car brand new. They owe you what the thing was actually worth when it was damaged. I looked up similar used TVs from the same year and they're selling for around $350–$500, which is why I offered $400. I also wasn't the person who knocked it over. My friend was, and I've already spoken to him about contributing. I'm willing to make sure my roommate gets compensated, but I don't think this situation should result in him getting a brand-new $1,100 TV entirely at my expense. My roommate says that's irrelevant because he wasn't planning to replace his TV and it could've lasted another five years. I understand that argument, but I still don't think accidentally breaking something old means you're automatically responsible for buying the newest equivalent model.

|||Internet Jury

Who's more in the wrong?

Your vote is anonymous

1 juror has ruled so far. The AI verdict stays sealed until you vote.