Tree fell, who's responsible

Alpha Dog 1

Basically a friend of mine living in the country side with big trees bordering between his house and the neighbours.

Basically during the storm a few weeks ago the tree fell on his side and flattening his timber shed and destroying everything inside.
The tree was planted on his neighbours side but fell on his side.

Who is responsible for the damage ?

vinnie13

if the tree is planted in the neighbours garden then they are at fault,house insurance hould cover it anyway

brian_t

Similar thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057154711

234

vinnie13 wrote: »

if the tree is planted in the neighbours garden then they are at fault,house insurance hould cover it anyway

Where on earth did you get that conclusion from? On what basis is the neighbour automatically responsible?

eyescreamcone

...Gravity?

Alpha Dog 1

vinnie13 wrote: »

if the tree is planted in the neighbours garden then they are at fault,house insurance hould cover it anyway

How sure are you on this and do you have any theory to back this up?
Ask this because he has been told that he is largely responsible and he has to claim on his insurance. Some costs are split but he is going to lose his no claims bonus as well.

zetecescort

234 wrote: »

Where on earth did you get that conclusion from? On what basis is the neighbour automatically responsible?

similar discussion had on the farming forum here. basically comes down to the landowner is responsible for what grows on their land.

234

zetecescort wrote: »

similar discussion had on the farming forum here. basically comes down to the landowner is responsible for what grows on their land.

You don't incur come kind of open-ended liability for everything that happens to be on your land merely by owning land.

There are specific legal doctrines that deal with these issues e.g. negligence (which is focused on the land owner), occupiers liability, nuisance in respect of things like roots when they cross boundaries and do damage, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in respect of hazardous activities. There would be a few other areas too.

But unless you can show that the damage caused by something on the land falls within a specific cause of action then tough luck. It's now just a simple case of "your land, your problem".

Regarding the OP, there was a similar discussion here a while ago about a tree falling on a caravan. The OP would be well advised to listen to his insurer. But generally speaking, if your neighbour's tree falls onto your land, unless you can show that the neighbour was negligent in some way than I'm struggling to see how you can sue them.

What they may be insured for, and if the insurer feels like paying, are different matters altogether.

kkelliher

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

Basically a friend of mine living in the country side with big trees bordering between his house and the neighbours.

Basically during the storm a few weeks ago the tree fell on his side and flattening his timber shed and destroying everything inside.
The tree was planted on his neighbours side but fell on his side.

Who is responsible for the damage ?

Unless the neighbour has being negligent in some way then your friend is liable as the damage was caused by a storm which is classed as accidental and therefore your friend will just have to claim off his own insurance

goldwingkk

My neighbours (A) garden meets a neighbour (B) garden in the next street behind us end to end . A large tree straddling the border in a kind of as ditch (gardens / houses over 100 years old ) A large tree fell into my near neighbours garden damaging raised beds , fences and the tree fall left a huge hole . A wants B to pay for all damage and tree removal and renovation of garden etc . Another friend tells me this is an act of God and whoevers' land the tree falls on owns the tree and is liable ?

Pro Hoc Vice

goldwingkk wrote: »

My neighbours (A) garden meets a neighbour (B) garden in the next street behind us end to end . A large tree straddling the border in a kind of as ditch (gardens / houses over 100 years old ) A large tree fell into my near neighbours garden damaging raised beds , fences and the tree fall left a huge hole . A wants B to pay for all damage and tree removal and renovation of garden etc . Another friend tells me this is an act of God and whoevers' land the tree falls on owns the tree and is liable ?

Is your friend an expert of some sort, a Engineer, a tree surgeon or a solicitor or barrister who can give valid reasons why this act is not negligent.

goldwingkk

My friend said he was speaking from personal past experience. I am merely asking here, if anyone on here would have any constructive legal knowledge about the situation . I do not need advice from an engineer or a tree surgeon. There is no question of negligence , that I know . Negligence is to knowingly NEGLECT the care of the tree in question, It was a healthy tree . I would appreciate only, any helpful comments , especially from others who might have been in a similar situation.

Alpha Dog 1

OK it seems from this thread that if there is no negligence, i.e. the tree is healthy and was not damaged before the storm the person whose land the tree falls on and subsequently damages is responsible.

kkelliher

goldwingkk wrote: »

My friend said he was speaking from personal past experience. I am merely asking here, if anyone on here would have any constructive legal knowledge about the situation . I do not need advice from an engineer or a tree surgeon. There is no question of negligence , that I know . Negligence is to knowingly NEGLECT the care of the tree in question, It was a healthy tree . I would appreciate only, any helpful comments , especially from others who might have been in a similar situation.

As someone who deals with this issue on an almost daily basis at present in the insurance world. If no negligence can be prove there will be no case to answer end of storey

goldwingkk

Thank you , are you saying then that the person on who's land the tree falls has responsibility for removing tree and repairing his own damaged property ?

kkelliher

goldwingkk wrote: »

Thank you , are you saying then that the person on who's land the tree falls has responsibility for removing tree and repairing his own damaged property ?

In respect to repairing his own damaged property yes. In respect to the tree yes but there is legal decisions where he is supposed to offer the wood back to the actual owner before disposing (never made any sense to me but there you go). In practice most of those who own the tree should and would generally get it removed at their cost but they dont legally have to. Its one of thoses areas where legalities are one thing but having to live next to a neighbour for your lifetime is another and common sense should prevail. Any damage to a party wall would legally have a shared liability.

Pro Hoc Vice

goldwingkk wrote: »

My friend said he was speaking from personal past experience. I am merely asking here, if anyone on here would have any constructive legal knowledge about the situation . I do not need advice from an engineer or a tree surgeon. There is no question of negligence , that I know . Negligence is to knowingly NEGLECT the care of the tree in question, It was a healthy tree . I would appreciate only, any helpful comments , especially from others who might have been in a similar situation.

But you will need an expert to either rule in or rule out negligence. A healthy tree falling may still be negligent. There is no need to show the person knew there was a problem the usual test is knew or ought to have know. No one here can answer the question as no one here has seen the land in question, the history of the situation. Each case has it's own facts and one tiny or big issue could change liability.

kkelliher

infosys wrote: »

A healthy tree falling may still be negligent.

I have had this tested in many insurance cases and i have never seen it prove true

Pro Hoc Vice

kkelliher wrote: »

I have had this tested in many insurance cases and i have never seen it prove true

Was the tree planted in the wrong place, was it foreseeable because of soil conditions and exposed land that a healthy tree would fall over, was the tree owner warned by a neighbour that in the area such trees are not planted because of issues. I could go on and on. No one can make a blanket statement that a unhealthy tree is negligent or a healthy one not negligent. While it's would in general be true it cannot always be true. Negligence in such a case would require a number of experts. The one problem with proving it, is that it may be a lot cheaper to have chat with neighbour and agree how the damage will be sorted and just do it.

An interesting case on negligence and nuisance of a tree Caminer v. Northern & London Investment Trust Ld. [1951] AC 88. In that case there was two problems with tree but no liability

kkelliher

infosys wrote: »

Was the tree planted in the wrong place, was it foreseeable because of soil conditions and exposed land that a healthy tree would fall over, was the tree owner warned by a neighbour that in the area such trees are not planted because of issues. I could go on and on. No one can make a blanket statement that a unhealthy tree is negligent or a healthy one not negligent. While it's would in general be true it cannot always be true. Negligence in such a case would require a number of experts. The one problem with proving it, is that it may be a lot cheaper to have chat with neighbour and agree how the damage will be sorted and just do it.

Agreed

goldwingkk

My neighbours (A) garden meets a neighbour (B) garden in the next street behind us end to end . A large tree straddling the border in a kind of as ditch (gardens / houses over 100 years old ) A large tree fell into my near neighbours garden damaging raised beds , fences and the tree fall left a huge hole . A wants B to pay for all damage and tree removal and renovation of garden etc . Another friend tells me this is an act of God and whoevers' land the tree falls on owns the tree and is liable ?

The Above was my initial post . Now Does Neighbour "B" (2 very elderly ladies) have to pay for everything or what

Pro Hoc Vice

goldwingkk wrote: »

My neighbours (A) garden meets a neighbour (B) garden in the next street behind us end to end . A large tree straddling the border in a kind of as ditch (gardens / houses over 100 years old ) A large tree fell into my near neighbours garden damaging raised beds , fences and the tree fall left a huge hole . A wants B to pay for all damage and tree removal and renovation of garden etc . Another friend tells me this is an act of God and whoevers' land the tree falls on owns the tree and is liable ?

The Above was my initial post . Now Does Neighbour "B" (2 very elderly ladies) have to pay for everything or what

No one can answer with any degree of certainty the answer based on the facts will be either yes or no. If the land owner wants a answer they should get an expert to examin the locus.

goldwingkk

Fair enough . Thanks for all comments

Santa Cruz

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

OK it seems from this thread that if there is no negligence, i.e. the tree is healthy and was not damaged before the storm the person whose land the tree falls on and subsequently damages is responsible.

I agree entirely. If the tree was unstable and evidence could show that the landowner was aware (or should have been aware) Rylands Fletcher could apply. In the absence of such evidence there is no liability.