Law Suit - injured by tree being cut down

tinchento

Just looking for advice.

had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission. An accident occurred where a tree one uncle was cutting fell on other and he suffered serious injuries to his hip and 2 broken legs.

Injured uncle is now taking a case against the farmer and the other uncle who is now worried sick he may have to pay compensation which he does not have. The farmer has farm insurance. in a situation like this, does compensation lie with the insurance company as the farmer had given permission to be on his land to cut the trees or would the uninjured person be liable to pay compensation to the injured person?

Lenar3556

tinchento wrote: »

Just looking for advice.

had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission. An accident occurred where a tree one uncle was cutting fell on other and he suffered serious injuries to his hip and 2 broken legs.

Injured uncle is now taking a case against the farmer and the other uncle who is now worried sick he may have to pay compensation which he does not have. The farmer has farm insurance. in a situation like this, does compensation lie with the insurance company as the farmer had given permission to be on his land to cut the trees or would the uninjured person be liable to pay compensation to the injured person?

A sad case.

The question is one of negligence.

Was the farmer negligent in granting them permission to cut down trees? - The facts would need to be better understood, but I don’t see an obvious case of negligence here.

Was the uncle operating the chainsaw negligent in the manner he was cutting the tree such that it fell on the injured party - possibly.

Were the two donkeys the author of their own misfortune cutting trees without adequate safety measures?

I would favour the latter.

nuac

Mod
Open for general discussion subject to forum rules on legal advice

MIKEKC

Lenar3556 wrote: »

A sad case.

The question is one of negligence.

Was the farmer negligent in granting them permission to cut down trees? - The facts would need to be better understood, but I don’t see an obvious case of negligence here.

Was the uncle operating the chainsaw negligent in the manner he was cutting the tree such that it fell on the injured party - possibly.

Were the two donkeys the author of their own misfortune cutting trees without adequate safety measures?

I would favour the latter.

A lot of insurance policies only give cover if chainsaw operator has ticket

nthclare

Usually there's a risk assessment made before you cut down a tree and it's all about making the right cuts, from top to bottom.

Weight distribution is a big assessment because one false e move and it could be game over or someone could cut their leg off.

Also it's handy to have done a chainsaw course

I've seen absolutely horrific injuries on YouTube because of people who lack self awareness and are not great at physics and risk assessments...

So sorry to hear about the accident I hope whatever happens it will be sorted out with the least amount of stress..

listermint

Well one thing's for sure.

He will lose a family member by proceeding with it.

Mad_maxx

i got hurt in the summer of june 2018 helping out someone who was entirely negligent , they chose to be beligerent however and were affronted that i would seek compensation , im already out about 5 k as the pain has not went away and i spend a fair bit on meds , never mind consultants etc , ive no private health insurance having foolishly stopped paying it in 2013 after twelve years

i consulted a solicitor , went through PIAB but the other side refused to engage on any level , in the end i was told it would cost 17 k to go to the civil court and i was unlikely to get more than the cost of going there at best as my issue is one of chronic pain

made the call not to proceed in the end as while i was pretty sure to win , a moral victory at that price was too expensive

insurance is only ever a $ opportunity when it comes to road accidents where the person at fault is compelled by law to be decent , not so with public liability

this case involves broken legs which is more relatable than a soft tissue injury which is vague by definition to prove but if the person being sued doesnt play ball , its still not easy by any means

Peregrinus

tinchento wrote: »

. . . had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission . . .

They were cutting down trees for the farmer with his permission.

This is a bit confusing. If they were cutting down the trees for the farmer, this suggests that he wanted the trees cut down, and asked these two to do it. If so, what did he "give permission" for? Did he give them permission to do what he had already asked them to do? That doesn't make sense.

Or, if he gave them permission to cut down the trees, that suggests that they wanted to take the trees down and he agreed to let them. But, if that's the case, in what sense were they taking the trees down "for the farmer"?

I think it would help to clarify who wanted to cut the trees down and who was doing a service for who here.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

They were cutting down trees for the farmer with his permission.

This is a bit confusing.

I thought the same, assumed the OP emphasised they had permission to do what they did, but worth asking.

tinchento

Thanks for all the advice.

The farmer asked them to clear the trees as they were obstructive and cut up as firewood. All 3 would then share the firewood.

tinchento

tinchento wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.

The farmer asked them to clear the trees as they were obstructive and cut up as firewood. All 3 would then share the firewood.

Unless they were qualified contractors with insurance that's a very silly farmer.

Large bottle small glass

The farmer has a duty of care to invitees on his land.

He allowed in chainsaw operators of questionable competence to cut his trees for him; did he check for certs, do risk assessment etc?

As a landowner I specifically asked what my policy covered when I "employed" someone on farm, most casual work was covered but chainsaw work was specifically not covered and users needed to have their own specific insurance and certificates for chainsaw work.

The farmer will be on the hook imo but he may not be insured for it. If he has land he is a mark and is in for a tough time.

Mango Joe

There were only two chainsaw-wielding Uncles present in this Farmers field.

Presumably there was a maximum of 2 trees being simultaneously cut down at any one instant in time by said Uncles.

For one Uncle to unwittingly put himself in harms way beneath a tree being cut down by the only remaining Uncle present was some feat.

Personal responsibility used to be a thing.

If the Farmer was off watching Netflix at the time it's hard to see why the deaf, blind, injudicious Uncle (Uncles?) should be allowed make his life a living misery.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless they were qualified contractors with insurance that's a very silly farmer.

it's normal enough for people to know people, you'd just expect them to stand away from the path of a falling tree

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's normal enough for people to know people, you'd just expect them to stand away from the path of a falling tree

Yeah, and people get sued all the time.

amadangomor

Chainsaws are deadly and there should be a license for their use.

Too many amateur's going around endangering themselves and others

thomas anderson.

Following this out of interest because I cannot fathom how the injured party is holding the farmer liable.

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

Well one thing's for sure.

He will lose a family member by proceeding with it.

not at all

im sure the uncle knows the other uncle doesnt have insurance, but is after the farmers insurance solely

in ireland we have a thing called the 1% rule... where even if you are found to be 1% negligent, but you have insurance, you can be forced to pay 100% of the compensation if the other named parties in a case have no insurance

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Following this out of interest because I cannot fathom how the injured party is holding the farmer liable.

Farmer shouldn't have allowed under qualified operatives to undertake such an exercise on his property, they likely had no specific insurance cover

hullaballoo

This is very tenuous.

It is not a classic relationship that would tend to give rise to any particular onus on the farmer that I can think of. There are a few almost nearly theres but nothing I'd be happy to recommend.

Peregrinus was not asking idle questions; they were quite incisive.

The nature of the relationship is key here to establish who might owe who what duty and in my reading of what happened, it seems like one where the 1% rule sydthebeat mentions as being about the only avenue for the injured uncle. Even with that quite generous rule, there would surely be difficulties for the injured uncle.

It's unlikely that the injured uncle is actually looking to get money from the other uncle, though it would of course be helpful for any ongoing relationships if the two talked about it.

^^^ that's heartening to hear.

Peregrinus

amadangomor wrote: »

Chainsaws are deadly . . .

They are. In a former job I used to have a bit to do with injuries occasioned to Coillte workers. You cannot believe what a momentary slip with a chainsaw can do.

But this was not a chainsaw accident. The fact that chainsaws were used doesn't seem to have contributed to the injuries, so far as we can tell from the limited info in the OP.

Eggs For Dinner

sydthebeat wrote: »

not at all

im sure the uncle knows the other uncle doesnt have insurance, but is after the farmers insurance solely

in ireland we have a thing called the 1% rule... where even if you are found to be 1% negligent, but you have insurance, you can be forced to pay 100% of the compensation if the other named parties in a case have no insurance

If the farmer is held 1% or 100% liable and his insurance contains an exclusion for the use of chainsaws, then they will not provide indemnity to to farmer. He will have to compensate a successful claimant from his own funds

thomas anderson.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Farmer shouldn't have allowed under qualified operatives to undertake such an exercise on his property, they likely had no specific insurance cover

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

thomas anderson.

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

Free firewood

Detritus70

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

I'm happy to call compo culture for people who bang their knee on table legs at the restaurant or get hit by flying coins from a lawnmower. I'd call these people greedy money-grubbers all day long and I won't entertain any counterargument.
But in this case a man I seriously injured, this is something entirely different. This is not something you laugh off as friends.

wildwillow

The farmer shouldn't have allowed them near the trees. He should have checked their competence in chainsaw use and training for tree felling and their insurance.

Even if chainsaw use is covered in his farm insurance, it would not apply to these two.

This case is exactly why only fully qualified and insured contractors should be used for tree cutting.

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

I'm saying the farmer was foolish , not defending the sub competence of the other two individuals

thomas anderson.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I'm saying the farmer was foolish , not defending the sub competence of the other two individuals

I don't think he was foolish, I think the 2 uncles were being opportunistic.

Holding the farmer hostage for their own incompetence is reprehensible.

wildwillow

The farmer should know his responsibility towards people he had "invited" onto his land.

He was benifitting from the job, getting trees cut and getting firewood. Even if he didn't instigate the work, he allowed it and was giving them recompense for their work in the form of firewood.

If you are a person on any means, as in a farmer, you need to consider these type of situations very carefully.

Eggs For Dinner

Detritus70 wrote: »

I'm happy to call compo culture for people who bang their knee on table legs at the restaurant or get hit by flying coins from a lawnmower. I'd call these people greedy money-grubbers all day long and I won't entertain any counterargument.
But in this case a man I seriously injured, this is something entirely different. This is not something you laugh off as friends.

The serious outcome of an event does not impose liability on a person. He either was or wasn't negligent owing a duty of care

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

I don't think he was foolish, I think the 2 uncles were being opportunistic.

Holding the farmer hostage for their own incompetence is reprehensible.

He was very foolish to let someone cut down tree's who didn't have the proper insurance to carry such an exercise out

thomas anderson.

thomas anderson. wrote: »

I don't think he was foolish, I think the 2 uncles were being opportunistic.

Holding the farmer hostage for their own incompetence is reprehensible.

Both foolish on the part of the farmer, and opportunistic of one uncle.

KaneToad

I think all parties involved were very foolish and naive. The farmer particularly as he has most to lose (financially). The lads were cutting down his trees, on his land, for payment - the payment being a share of the firewood.

I'm not a legal professional but my 2c is that the farmer is liable.

amadangomor

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are. In a former job I used to have a bit to do with injuries occasioned to Coillte workers. You cannot believe what a momentary slip with a chainsaw can do.

But this was not a chainsaw accident. The fact that chainsaws were used doesn't seem to have contributed to the injuries, so far as we can tell from the limited info in the OP.

Worked as a gardener for a while.

Sometimes I would work with their tree surgeons and always felt safe around them. When a regular gardener picked up a chainsaw I would be concerned.

Got nicked on the toe by one of them, luckily had steel toe boots on.

Del2005

Detritus70 wrote: »

I'm happy to call compo culture for people who bang their knee on table legs at the restaurant or get hit by flying coins from a lawnmower. I'd call these people greedy money-grubbers all day long and I won't entertain any counterargument.
But in this case a man I seriously injured, this is something entirely different. This is not something you laugh off as friends.

The problem is that they where happy enough to work away without training or proper insurance, for some free fire wood, and now one is seriously injured they are looking for compensation. If they weren't so greedy in cutting down the trees then this wouldn't of happened, there is a reason why the Government introduced laws requiring training and insurance if doing dangerous work. The only winners in this will be the solicitors.

fergus1001

KaneToad wrote:

I'm not a legal professional but my 2c is that the farmer is liable.

if there was nothing formally agreed it's one party's word against another with no proof of the farmer inviting them onto the land

fergus1001

fergus1001 wrote: »

if there was nothing formally agreed it's one party's word against another with no proof of the farmer inviting them onto the land

Which is why we have Courts to decide these things.

Big thing will be who is the best mark for any payment, so probably the farmer, with some deduction for contributory negligence on the injured party's part, imo.

gimli2112

just looked at a Farm policy online and there's nothing there that jumps out at me that would exclude the uncle's claim against the farmer.
there's a tree felling exclusion but this wouldn't apply, where it's for the insured's own use. This may have some impact but I don't believe it's enough to totally frustrate a claim

it depends on what questions were asked and answered at proposal stage and any endorsements that would apply but it would seem to be covered under a standard wording, oh and provided he's insured with the crowd whose policy I just looked at

FixitFelix

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless they were qualified contractors with insurance that's a very silly farmer.

Not silly, cheap farmer, and now gonna cost him a **** load more

Del2005

gimli2112 wrote: »

just looked at a Farm policy online and there's nothing there that jumps out at me that would exclude the uncle's claim against the farmer.
there's a tree felling exclusion but this wouldn't apply, where it's for the insured's own use. This may have some impact but I don't believe it's enough to totally frustrate a claim

it depends on what questions were asked and answered at proposal stage and any endorsements that would apply but it would seem to be covered under a standard wording, oh and provided he's insured with the crowd whose policy I just looked at

Does the policy cover just you felling trees or others working on your farm felling trees? Everything I read about tree felling always says to make sure that whoever you hire is insured.

gimli2112

I don't see anything in the conditions or exclusions that would exclude it. The two guys could probably be considered employees of the famer. Standard definition of employee would include a self employed person engaged by the insured for their business.

I'm not familiar with this type of policy and don't know what questions are asked in the proposal but on the face of it there's a good argument for cover. In fairness this is the type of thing that people buy such insurance for, if it wasn't covered I'd want to know why not. It seems a genuine accident where someone working on the farm was injured.

His premium will go through the roof mind you.

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't see anything in the conditions or exclusions that would exclude it. The two guys could probably be considered employees of the famer. Standard definition of employee would include a self employed person engaged by the insured for their business.

I'm not familiar with this type of policy and don't know what questions are asked in the proposal but on the face of it there's a good argument for cover. In fairness this is the type of thing that people buy such insurance for, if it wasn't covered I'd want to know why not. It seems a genuine accident where someone working on the farm was injured.

His premium will go through the roof mind you.

Can you link the wording?

Whether there is cover or not, there's no good argument to compensate the farmer to allow untrained, unqualified, unticketed and uninsured people mess around with chainsaws. Insurance is designed to protect against unforeseen accidents and this was waiting to happen

Exclusions on insurance policies are designed to try and prevent such stupidity. However, it doesn't stop some and that's why farms are the most hazardous workplace

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Can you link the wording?

Whether there is cover or not, there's no good argument to compensate the farmer to allow untrained, unqualified, unticketed and uninsured people mess around with chainsaws. Insurance is designed to protect against unforeseen accidents and this was waiting to happen

Exclusions on insurance policies are designed to try and prevent such stupidity. However, it doesn't stop some and that's why farms are the most hazardous workplace

I don't want to cos I work in insurance, just google "farm insurance policy document".
This is a fortuitous event. On the basis the farmer believed they were capable to carry out the task, which there is nothing to say otherwise there is no requirement for him to check they went to chainsaw academy.
Insurance covers stupidity, it doesn't cover willful neglect which is not the case here, in my opinion.
I mean we only have the basic facts, Insurers would investigate and determine if cover applied but on the face of it there's a good argument for indemnity.

Eggs For Dinner

You can't just Google farm insurance policy document and define this as being an insured event. It is quite possible that the farmer's policy (and schedule) contains a specific exclusion for the use of chainsaws or the use of chainsaws by unqualified persons. If it does, the insurers are out of the picture

There would be an expectation that a farmer engage persons competent to carry out tasks. These 2 would be considered contractors. They were performing an individual task, for an agreed price. They provided their own equipment and performed the task without direction from the farmer. Unless there was a unique hazard on the land, I don't see the farmer being liable. The other uncle causing the accident is in bother IMO, with significant contribution from the injured person

Meathman12

wildwillow wrote: »

The farmer should know his responsibility towards people he had "invited" onto his land.

The farmer might deny inviting them to do the job. The uncle's will of course clearly recall his invitation.

But if the cutter was standing in a different farmers field or on the edge of the public road would this complicate things?

Iodine1

This is a much more complex case than we can deal with here. As far as I can see the man was not injured by the chainsaw. So it was not a chainsaw accident. He was injured by a falling tree, knocked by his partner in a contracting type business / arrangement. There will be a lot of investigation before it will be resolved. Not simple at all.

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You can't just Google farm insurance policy document and define this as being an insured event. It is quite possible that the farmer's policy (and schedule) contains a specific exclusion for the use of chainsaws or the use of chainsaws by unqualified persons. If it does, the insurers are out of the picture

There would be an expectation that a farmer engage persons competent to carry out tasks. These 2 would be considered contractors. They were performing an individual task, for an agreed price. They provided their own equipment and performed the task without direction from the farmer. Unless there was a unique hazard on the land, I don't see the farmer being liable. The other uncle causing the accident is in bother IMO, with significant contribution from the injured person

I said that already but, without being familiar with this class of insurance, I would be surprised if there was as this, on the face of it, looks exactly the kind of thing you would take out liability insurance for in the first place.

screamer

wildwillow wrote: »

The farmer shouldn't have allowed them near the trees. He should have checked their competence in chainsaw use and training for tree felling and their insurance.

Even if chainsaw use is covered in his farm insurance, it would not apply to these two.

This case is exactly why only fully qualified and insured contractors should be used for tree cutting.

This is exactly why qualified and insured contractors should be used for everything. Chimney, window and gutter cleaners, painters, you name it, there are chancers out there and there are idiots who avail of their services and end up in a world of hurt.

I’ve no idea in the legalities of this case, but from just a viewpoint the uncles knew what they were undertaking, the farmer was not paying them, and whoever cut the tree that caused the injury should be the liable party. TBH taking a case against your own family is a low thing to do, would he do it had he been working in his brothers yard? Equally I don’t think the farmer should foot the cost either, because these two took on something they’d no idea about doing. Compo culture I agree 1000%

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

I said that already but, without being familiar with this class of insurance, I would be surprised if there was as this, on the face of it, looks exactly the kind of thing you would take out liability insurance for in the first place.

Any exactly the type of thing an insurer would want to exclude under their liability policy to deter such a reckless activity. This wasn't fortuitous, this was likely to happen

gimli2112

but it's not excluded on the standard wording, if it was such a fundamental risk it would be
there's a difference between taking a risk and knowing something is going to happen
just to be clear you are correct to a certain extent in that Insurers could argue it was gross negligence and not simply negligence but (and I'm not a lawyer) I don't believe they would get this to stick
if the guy is injured he is entitled to be compensated, to what extent I don't know. there could very well be contributory negligence but the court is going to rule in favour of the injured individual 999 times out of 1000,especially if there's an insurance policy to pick up the tab,
which I believe there is