so basically His family was left with the charges of $600 for running water.
do you guys think they should have to pay this?

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/dead_man_billed_600_for_running_water/2e5ee282

crazycatpup : I don't think they should have to pay it, but I know they probably will end up paying . It would cost a lot more than $600 to take any legal action. They can try to talk to the company that issued the bill and request that it be withheld , which can sometimes work.  The most effective way is to threaten to go to a new service provider however there is usually only 1 option as far as water services.

This just shows how corporations and businesses generally only care about making money and not about their customers. I personally feel that no one should ever have to pay for water as it is a basic necessity of life... but I am sure we would have to pay for oxygen if they could find a way to do that.

Wow. Are you really gonna charge a guy WHO IS DEAD? That's something I have never heard of before. Its pretty stupid and useless for them to do.

This is jut ridiculous. Forcing  a dead guy to pay a water bill. This pretty much proves how greedy society is; that we're willing to charge a dead person money over some losses is out of the question. And the fact that the family is going to end up paying for it (if they didn't already) just irks me. We NEED water to survive, which is why it shouldn't cost anything in the first place. Jeez.

Someone is in hot water over this

Seriously though, the earth is like what 80% water? Come on now, he died let it slide.

You guys seem to be missing the water company's point of view. It costs a lot of money to get the water to their treatment plants, then to apply the proper amount of chemicals to sterilize the water without sterilizing their customers (namely: you). Then think of all the electricity that goes into driving the pumps to get the water into water towers, coupled with the hundreds of miles of plumbing that the company must upkeep. And remember, they need to keep a certain amount of water on call to be used at any given time, and this guy just had his running.

Is it right? I don't know. But someone DOES have to pay for that water.

Lazlo Falconi : He died right there..It's not like he could have turned the water off.
I honestly do not think it would be fair.

Lazlo Falconi : i dont know about the rest of the world but when that much water is flowing the people in control of it generaly show up looking for leaks, its ridiculous they ignored it over 3 weeks.

crazycatpup : But it's not fair that the water company should have to loose money on all of that water just because that guy died. I didn't say his family should have paid for it, but someone will, because if they don't, then the water company takes a loss, in which case the water company paid for it.

thenumberone : I don't know about the rest of the world but where I live you are free to use as much water as you like without any intervention. It's called freedom.

Lazlo Falconi : You are right the water company would lose $600 (which would likely be less because of the profit mark up)... or the family has to lose $600. It just seems like the moral or right thing would be the company paying for it.  In this particular case it is controlled by the municipality the man lived in, so the tax payers would end up with ever so slightly higher taxes. If a water main breaks, it increases taxes. If a city employee screws up, it increases taxes. Now if a man dies with his faucet on shouldn't the tax payers have to pay for it?

smotpoker86 : If a water main breaks, it increases taxes. If a city employee screws up, it increases taxes. Now if a man dies with his faucet on shouldn't the tax payers have to pay for it?

Absolutely not. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for ANY of that. Where I live--and in all of the cities I've lived in since moving out of my parents house--the water was provided by a private company, completely separate of the city's government. If a water main broke, the customer's paid for it by having the fees increased. Although, in reality, the water company's fees already included money for fixing things like that.

But what you're saying is that a man dying doesn't have to pay for his water. So should he not have to pay his credit cards off? Because if that's the case, when my parents die, I'm gonna go grab their credit cards and run up a huge tab. Since they're dead, the tax payers should cover it, right? No, his family needs to pay for it. It's a shame that his water was left on for so long, and it sucks that the family will have to pay for it, but should the burden really be given to the rest of society, just because this man had no friends to check on him for three weeks?

You guys seem to be forgetting one very important thing:

What you're saying is correct. MORALLY. Lazlo is absolutely right. No, the man shouldn't have to pay for it, and neither should his family. That's sad and inconvenient for them, and it's just not fair, etc.

But: Something was used, and someone needs to pay for it. Since the guy who used the water isn't paying for much of anything these days, it's put onto the next of kin, just like all his other debts. I feel sorry for his family but I'm glad that they're going to have to pay for it, because if the water company kept taking hits like that, they'd have to raise their prices for something completely avoidable. There has to be a balance, and unfortunately this one isn't in favor of the deceased man's family. Dem's da breaks.

Lazlo Falconi :   Where do you live? (just curious , don't have to be too specific)

This happened in Canada, and our country is bit more socialist  than USA (assuming you live in the states ). The tax payers here do end up paying for basic infrastructure, usually (in the case of a municipal service especially) through their property taxes. This includes the operation and maintenance costs of water and sewer systems. It is not entirely different from the privately owned system you speak of, as the people who benefit and use the service end up paying for it.

I am just saying that it makes more sense to have the city (aka tax payers) pay for this also.  This type of scenario is just as hard to predict/stop as a water main bursting, and I mean damn near impossible other than the man never turning on his tap in fear of instantly dieing. It is also much less likely to occur than a pipe bursting. That is why I suggest the tax payers should pay for it. $600 dollars spread between 20,000 people is pennies, they probably wouldn't even notice it.

This is part of the article you might find interesting. " Mayor Vance Badawe is getting a bit defensive. He questioned whether or not the family approached other service providers with the same requests.  As it turns out, the family did, and other providers like the phone company naturally exempted the charges incurred after MacPherson's death. "  It turns out some companies can show a bit of compassion and courtesy, at least more than that city has.

This situation is quite a bit different than having a pre-existing credit card debt, it's not like it is a bill that is a few months old that he just never paid... It happened after he died and thus we have a discussion about it. If his family went into his house and cranked up the tap, then It would be similar to your credit card story, and yes they should pay for it in that case. Also, I wouldn't recommend doing that as fraud is srs bsns.

Lazlo Falconi : you miss my point.
here, if that much water is being drawn they would enquire if the person was actualy using that much, its not restriction of freedom, its avoidance of waste and being ripped off.

Obviously morality says they shouldn't have to pay it. Morality says that no one should have to pay off a dead man's debts, but the debts of a deceased person always fall on their family. It's never fair, but that's just how things are. The water has to be paid for somehow. Even if it was a leaky pipe that no one knew about, it doesn't matter. The water companies don't care that someone died. They only care about getting paid.