Tree clearing dispute

[HCR]

Surely if it's on your property it's your responsibility, accordingly if it fails then while you couldn't be criminally liable if you've carried out adequte inspections you would still be in a position of civil liability?

 

A bit like if your car is parked on a slope and the handbrake fails rolling into and causing damage you're responsible for the damage, but you couldn't have avoided it?

 

I had a case a bit like this in storms in about 2005 - a tree failed next to a used car garage, damaging 2 cars (Jaguars I think). The end result - no foreseeability so the tree owner was not liable in any way. The garage owner's insurance had to pick it up.

 

The situation with the handbrake is a little different. If it's truly an act of god, then the owner won't be liable, but chances are that either the owner (for not applying it properly or failing to maintain it) or the manufacturer (for fitting a faulty component) will be liable in some way.

[Ty Korrigan]

 

Don't flame me for this post, this is just what I've been told. The owners of the poplar were both solicitors, man & wife, who were both surprised at their insurers policy on this.

 

And did these well off legal types make good their neighbours damages regardless of the insurances stand?

Imagine a poor widow recieving a cord of firewood across her lawn but unable to pay any-one to process it due to having to buy 8 grandkids presents plus the lack of the appropriate NPTC cert...

Ty:laugh1:

[daltontrees]

I'd agree witht he gist of advice so far, no foreseeability no liability. But it's still your tree whether on the ground or up in nthe air, you should dispose of it or if the neighbours do they should offer it to you before keeping it or chucking it.

Not all insurers will pay for fallen tree disposal on policy holders land, only for damage caused by it. Equally there is no rule for whether a policy covers damage or removal on neighbouring land. Check the policy small print! Insurers are quick to take premia and slow to pay out on claims. They're very good at it.

Trees in law are different from anything else. They might be a bit like cars, handbrakes etc but they are treated differently to mechanical and other manmade things due to their characteristics.

[Gary Prentice]

And did these well off legal types make good their neighbours damages regardless of the insurances stand?

Ty:laugh1:

 

Of course they did. And a Fortnum & masons hamper to compensate for the inconvenience.

[Valmet7]

Thanks for advice guys much appreciated.

Just thought id ask as a local tree surveyor has tried saying there is a new law about it but i understood it the way most of you have interpreted it. In that if the tree is healthy and its an act of god the owner isnt really at fault. Cheers

[HCR]

And did these well off legal types make good their neighbours damages regardless of the insurances stand?

Imagine a poor widow recieving a cord of firewood across her lawn but unable to pay any-one to process it due to having to buy 8 grandkids presents plus the lack of the appropriate NPTC cert...

Ty:laugh1:

 

That's a good point. Irrespective of any legal position, the decent thing to do would be to help clear the mess up.

[James_Martin]

Since the tree was growing in your property, it is naturally your responsibility to get the fallen tree cleared by hiring a tree removal specialist. However, when it comes to paying for the damages caused by the fallen tree to your neighbour's property, it all depends on a few questions and factors:

 

1) Whether your neighbour had requested or warned you of the position of the tree facing or lying heavily upon their land

2) Whether the tree was about to die or was rotting

 

If the damage is not disputed by your neighbour, then it is up to you whether you want to pay for it or not. However, for humanity's sake I would suggest that you pay a part of the damages caused to their property by your fallen tree.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Amelanchier
Removed link

[Jon Heuch]

The situation between insurance and legal liability is different.

 

Typically a houseowner may have two different insurance policies - one for contents and one for his/her own property. They cover different things, and of course some people have both with the same company. The property insurance covers just that - your property; in many cases the shed, walls etc are not covered by this, but may be for example if subsidence affects both main property and shed/walls. If your tree falls over and damages YOUR property the property insurer may pay for repair to YOUR property but not neighbours.

 

Your contents insurance typically has a third party liability aspect - but it will depend on the nature of the policy. If the property owner has no contents insurance he has no third party insurance. It is this insurance that covers claims from subsidence from neighbours, just as it covers claims for trees falling over and damaging neighbour's property. It has nothing to do with forseeability or negligence and the policy may be invalid if negligence could be proven i.e. the tree owner should have done something and thus the insurer states that the owner is not insured for that peril.

 

As for legal liability, I once interviewed a property owner whose garage (& car) was demolished by an estate owned tree (large lime) that fell in the 1987 storm (i.e. the tree was on the edge of the estate and of little concern to the estate owner). The estate owner refused to have anything to do with it and told the old man to arrange for the tree to be removed by themselves, at their own expense. Such tree owners do exist! 3 days at least he was stuck in his house before he could get anyone to look at it.

 

A tree owner has not duty to invoke his insurance, but if he fails to inform an insurer of a risk and then later attempts to make a claim he is likely to be sent packing. So the above tree owner might think "act of god" - I can ignore, only to find a claim against him once the facts are gathered...which the insurance company will walk away from. So such an approach is risky.