Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Legal Question wanted answering
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
The proximate cause in this case would appear to be the original fell.
However who is responsible for the rotten branch ?
Liability may be with the owner of that tree who appears to be your son .
Has the car owner reported this loss to his insurer . It is non fault there is no reason not to do so.
Advise him to so . If he has, his insurer will initiate subrogation proceedings against your son's property insurer .
If the car owner hasn't reported loss , request to see repair or TL invoice. Then advise he will need to instigate court proceedings .
He won't .
However who is responsible for the rotten branch ?
Liability may be with the owner of that tree who appears to be your son .
Has the car owner reported this loss to his insurer . It is non fault there is no reason not to do so.
Advise him to so . If he has, his insurer will initiate subrogation proceedings against your son's property insurer .
If the car owner hasn't reported loss , request to see repair or TL invoice. Then advise he will need to instigate court proceedings .
He won't .
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
The Tree Surgeon is taking a great risk doing private work without PI PL or even some EL coverage . Are you SURE he has none of these ?
Agreed.
And the part about 'not working for his employer' - if he arrived in his employer's van, and used his employer's tools, the customer could very easily argue that they felt it was a professional arrangement.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Sounds like HMRC might be interested to carry out an investigation for lost taxes
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
I would not make assumptions about the proximate cause. Too many questions need answering before you can assume anything. Also the son's HH insurers will only be involved if he's sensible enough to notify them. There might or might not be motor insurers as well.
Hornblower
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 1,712
If no one had been there to hear it, would it have made a noise?
symyjym
Banned
I would have thought that the owner of a tree that overhangs a public way/road is responsible for the maintenance of that tree. The offending branch seems like it was an accident waiting to happen if it was that rotte, so I don't see how the tree surgeon could be directly responsible.
I don't know if home insurance would cover it?
I don't know if home insurance would cover it?
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
He needs to notify them and allow them to investigate. If he doesn't he could end up with having to pay 3k plus another 3k or so for legal costs.
AlastairWatts
Active member
Isn't there an old legal saying that a man who acts for himself has a fool as a client? See a lawyer...
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
NO! Tell his house insurers. They will want to appoint their own Lawyers who know what they are doing IF the matter proceeds to litigation.
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
Yes. I taped it.
Brighton TID
New member
The fact that the other tree falling caused the rotten branch on the other tree to fall suggests that the rotten branch was precarious to say the least and could have fallen at any time in the future, possibly in the wind, and could have actually fallen on somebody rather than a car. Unfortunately, I would see this as being the responsibility of the tree owner who has failed in his basic duty to ensure that the other tree which he owns is maintained in a safe condition. Same would apply if a tile had fallen off his house.
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
By all means discuss it with a Lawyer if he'a a family friend who'll give a free consultation but …blah blah… his house insurers.
Very interesting. I would not admit to the facts as outlined . I would not admit to he causation of the trunk hitting the ground resulted in the sequence of events. I would defend the negligence claim and suggest the responsibilty of the tree with the rotten branch was the responsibility of the owner of that tree. Tree expert lawyer will look for precedents.
This is why defendants need a lawyer. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.
Inference drawn between the connection between the two events is arguable, may be regarded as valid? Tree surgeon may have not had the opportunity to inspect the rotten branch.
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
It all seems very fishy. An alleged accident occurs and nobody seems to know about it for 8 months, apart from the car driver and/or owner, yet somehow seem to know the sequence of events i.e. the impact of a tree hitting the ground causing a rotten branch to fall. How the heck do we know that happened? Someone out of the blue claims damage to a car and doesn't claim from the owner of the property but against the friend of a friend who was chopping down the tree. How does the car owner know to contact the chap cutting the tree. Why the delay? Was he driving around in a damaged car for months? We don't know if the car was insured? Stinky!
Why do you say it was an alleged accident? The OP states that the tree surgeon knew about it when it happened and it may well be that the OP's son was there at the time although he might confirm this.
When I first read it quickly, I didn't appreciate that the felled tree didn't hit the other branch but that the vibration from the impact caused it to fall. As it was described as an adjoining tree, it's probably fair to assume that it was also in the garden of the OP's son. I would suggest the onus is going to fall on him (no pun intended) rather than the tree surgeon hence he should be involving his household insurers. Is it reasonably to expect the tree surgeon to do an assessment on every tree around, every shed or anything else. d
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
Sorry I missed the bit about the driver taking the tree feller's details. I'm an idiot!. BTW Who were the other 2 fellers? Ha!