Neighbours tree liability

[felixthelogchopper]

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.

 

IIRC it's about foreseeability. Trouble is, there were 2 different Wagon Mound cases (1 and 2) and I can't remember which is which. Appellant is the same as claimant or plaintiff, ie the person bringing the case.

[daltontrees]

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.

 

That's 2!

[daltontrees]

IIRC it's about foreseeability. Trouble is, there were 2 different Wagon Mound cases (1 and 2) and I can't remember which is which. Appellant is the same as claimant or plaintiff, ie the person bringing the case.

 

What I took from Wagon Mound 2 was that the fire on the harbour was a foreseeable consequence of causing the oil slick, and the engineer was to blame for the damage caused by the fire. But what I really meant by citing it is that the court said that all the engineer had to do to prevent the hazard was to close a valve. Therefore although it was a freakish accident that caused the damage it could have been very easily avoided at nil cost.

 

If regular chimney sweeping could have prevented a chimney fire and if an obvious and entirely foreseeable consequence of a chimney fire was torching the neighbour's thatched roof, Wagon Mound 2 would have been on the side of the old lady.

[felixthelogchopper]

That's 2!

 

What I took from Wagon Mound 2 was that the fire on the harbour was a foreseeable consequence of causing the oil slick, and the engineer was to blame for the damage caused by the fire. But what I really meant by citing it is that the court said that all the engineer had to do to prevent the hazard was to close a valve. Therefore although it was a freakish accident that caused the damage it could have been very easily avoided at nil cost.

 

If regular chimney sweeping could have prevented a chimney fire and if an obvious and entirely foreseeable consequence of a chimney fire was torching the neighbour's thatched roof, Wagon Mound 2 would have been on the side of the old lady.

 

I agree with you, assuming there wasn't a regular chimney sweeping regime.

[daltontrees]

My, you're careful! That's an entirely appropriate caveat.

[likeitorlumpit]

Though the chimney sweep may have been incompetent and therefore not done the job correctly.

It's no wonder people find law interesting. So many possible outcomes

[mendiplogs]

This one has got both me and the housing association confused.

A neighbours conifer- about 50-60 feet had fallen across a tennants property not doing any damage other than to the tripple point fence. The tree remained at 45 degrees to the ground.

It was reduced (Xmas eve) by by the neighbours tree team just enough to prevent the sail causing damage. All arisings left in the garden. But then the trees owner was advised by his insurance company that he need do no more and it was now the housing associations responsibility.

Act of God was mentioned.

Can this right?

 

HI LUMPIT i no someone with a tree been down a year in a driveway other people have use over driveway and it damaging others 4x4 and cars as they can not get by tree so what you think of that then thanks jon

[felixthelogchopper]

My, you're careful! That's an entirely appropriate caveat.

 

It's all about the caveat.

[likeitorlumpit]

HI LUMPIT i no someone with a tree been down a year in a driveway other people have use over driveway and it damaging others 4x4 and cars as they can not get by tree so what you think of that then thanks jon

 

I sometimes wonder what makes people tick- you'd think morally the tree owner would be liable but it appears morally doesn't come into law.

[felixthelogchopper]

I sometimes wonder what makes people tick- you'd think morally the tree owner would be liable but it appears morally doesn't come into law.

 

You shoud never confuse the law with justice.