Neighbours tree liability

[charlie6]

Similar thing happened to a friends parents a couple of weeks ago. A poplar about 600 in diameter and about 15m high fell from neighbouring property and smashed through a fence and on another tree. Only the root ball was left on owners property. My friends parents ended having to go through their insurance after advise from a solicitor. It didn't seem right to me but they assured me that they had no other choice.

[Dean O]

in my experience the person where the tree lands (and often causes damage) foots the bill to sort tree to the boundary line (where owner doesn't want to do anything about it). they claim off their insurance and subsequently their insurance company pursues it with the owners insurance co.

 

some times the owner of the tree will take responsibility and pay for costs and damage, but in this instance the owner seems to be either skint or belligerent.

[Gary Prentice]

I think Treequip raised the issue. The tree didn't fall into the tenants garden per se. That would be one situation. The arisings made there way there after being cut off. That action changes the circumstances. The liability or cost for the removal of them is down to the contractor - if they can be identified - but ultimately would would end up with the tree owner who instructed them.

[skyhuck]

It's up to the injured party to pursue the matter. They should seek legal advice and claim any costs plus their inconvenience. No matter what the tree owner thinks is right it has cost your client for no fault of their own.

 

While you would think is the case under English Law it isn't.

 

I recall the case of an elderly woman who's thatched cottage was burned to the ground due her neighbour having a chimney fire, unfortunately the old lady had no insurance and the neighbour was not liable, the old lass was having to live in a caravan next to her burnt out cottage.

[daltontrees]

The more I think about this the unclearer it gets.

 

On the one hand you cold see the sloping tree as an encroachment into air space just like any overhanging branches. The position on that is clear, the overhung person can remove, subject only to offering the arisings back to the tree owner.

 

The generality of that is sound enough, it is a sensible position that has been in common law for at least 2 millenia. Trees are natural living things that don't know of petty arbitrary human things like ownership boundaries. It is not illegal to let a tree grow into someone's airspace.

 

But that isn't the situation here. The tree has been thrust into someone's airspace. Forget what the insurers say, insurers have a duty to themselves and their shareholders not to spend money if they don't have to. They have a contract (the insurance policy) with the insured which says when they pay out and when they don't. If they won't pay to finish the job off it doesn't necessarily follow that the tree owner shouldn't.

 

This is not a normal tree encroachment. It seems to me to be a sudden encroachment like any other, like if someone parked a car on your land. It may be an act of god, it may not have been foreseeable, but why should the encroached have to suffer this unauthorised intrusion into his airspace?

 

On that basis, get the tree owner to move it. I am pretty sure legal action would back this up and would award costs against the tree owner.

[daltontrees]

While you would think is the case under English Law it isn't.

 

I recall the case of an elderly woman who's thatched cottage was burned to the ground due her neighbour having a chimney fire, unfortunately the old lady had no insurance and the neighbour was not liable, the old lass was having to live in a caravan next to her burnt out cottage.

 

That is so unfair. And if you are familiar with the Wagon Mound case it also seems wrong.

[likeitorlumpit]

Thanks everyone for getting involved. I think the insurance company is trying it on. That will be tested.

The owner is a largish firm who access their compound from a different road.

My gut feeling is that they should have taken responsibility though just as in the case of an car accident- don't say sorry is the advice as it is the insurance company ultimately who pay out.

So- the owner can only do what he is advised by insurers if he expects them to foot any bills. In which case he is just acting on advice and not able to do as his gut feeling would guide him.

I understand now that the housing association will be forwarding our invoice to the owner. We will get paid regardless though it will be interesting to hear what happens. I just felt for the tennant, a nice bloke (judged by the mugs of tea brought out while we were there)

[felixthelogchopper]

That is so unfair. And if you are familiar with the Wagon Mound case it also seems wrong.

 

1 or 2?

[felixthelogchopper]

1 or 2?

 

Not being a smart arse, btw. It's just some time since I have read either and I was hoping for a pointer to the right one.

[likeitorlumpit]

Just read up on the Wagon Mound

The boat leaked fuel oil which mixed with cotton and a welding spark burned down the warf and a few boats.

Who was to blame- I can't really work it out. Words like appellants and I'm confused.

Did the judge say that the engineer should have known the likely outcome- oil on water still flammable.

Not sure how this relates to this specific tree works though.