Insurance says no "act of God"

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

If you had no idea the said tree was likely to come down then both you and the wife would be paid out..

 

If on the other hand you knew it was likely to fall on either car, you'd be questioned as to your own duty of care.. or negligence would you not?...

 

Would you leave a bicycle under a dodgy tree? I suspect it wouldn't matter would it. would you leave a thirty thousand car under a dodgy tree, I'd say not..   does a tree owner have a duty of care?.. yes.. but what if he has no reason to suspect his tree is in danger of falling down..

You've answered your own question. "I had no idea that the tree was going to fall over after I built my greenhouse below it, your honour". "Can I know have the money from my negligent neighbour to replace said greenhous", Thank you.

[Vespasian]

3 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

You've answered your own question. "I had no idea that the tree was going to fall over after I built my greenhouse below it, your honour". "Can I know have the money from my negligent neighbour to replace said greenhous", Thank you.

Yes but, you'd have to consider the tree to begin with if you built something under it, be that tree perfectly sound or otherwise...

 

On the other hand the tree owner would have to think carefully about keeping his tree if an extension was being built under it..

 

 

[eggsarascal]

7 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

Yes but, you'd have to consider the tree to begin with if you built something under it.

 

 

That isn't how it works, ffs.

[Gary Prentice]

19 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

Yes but, you'd have to consider the tree to begin with if you built something under it, be that tree perfectly sound or otherwise...

 

On the other hand the tree owner would have to think carefully about keeping his tree if an extension was being built under it..

 

 

Read Rylands as suggested. 

Any owner has to keeps things on his own property under control, be it a dog, horse or tree. When it escapes and affects others it down to him.

 

You can park your rolls Royce or your bycicle on your land without considering the condition of your neighbours tree. It doesn’t matter if it’s healthy or been dead for donkeys years. It isn’t a consideration, if it escapes, falls or otherwise trespasses onto your land it’s down to the owner. Why do you think councils fell their own trees, or allows TPOd trees to be felled when they are causing subsidence?  They don’t blame the homeowner for having a house near a big tree or argue about candyfloss foundations.

 

 

it really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp!

Edited February 8, 2018 by Gary Prentice

[Gary Prentice]

11 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

That isn't how it works, ffs.

[Gary Prentice]

11 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

That isn't how it works, ffs.

[Vespasian]

10 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

That isn't how it works, ffs.

Yea well its how people think..  its how a judge would go about apportioning liabilities.   putting aside insurance and what covered or not. If a judge was to ruminate on the issue he'd think along the same lines as I've put it on here..

[eggsarascal]

I give up.

 

Note to oneself, don't try to talk reason with this idiot again.

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, Vespasian said:

its how a judge would go about apportioning liabilities. 

No, it isn't!

[Vespasian]

Just now, Gary Prentice said:

No, it isn't!

Is it not?, only if I was a judge its exactly how I'd look at the problem..   and if I think along those lines, so would a judge... I'm sure of it.