Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Law Suit - injured by tree being cut down

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,133 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    What risk assessment did they take?

    Do they still have it?

    Why was the person not operating the chainsaw was so close to the tree that a branch falling off could land on him?


  • #53
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    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

    The standard wording must be read in conjunction with the policy document.liability. The schedule is where specific restrictions apply

    Just because a guy is injured does NOT entitle him to compensation, especially if he is a co-author of his own fate

    The existace, or lack of, insurance does not impose liability.


  • #54
    gimli2112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    exactly which we don't have, unless the Insurers specifically endorsed the cover out, which I don't believe they would as no-one would buy their policy the standard policy would cover it

    this is true but the insured described an accident not someone purposefully jumping out of a tree

    again correct but my point all along is there is an insurable event here, if the injured party brings his brother, who presumably could not afford the cost the insured party will foot the bill, not that it will get to court anyway as the Insurer will settle well before then


  • #55
    mojesius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,362 ✭✭✭mojesius


    Sorry to hijack the thread but I have a similar question. We are due to move into a new home and the previous owner told us that neighbours asked if they could cut down a tree on our land that's blocking their view. It's not a particularly nice tree so we are happy to oblige once we speak with them.

    However, it's sounds like we could be liable if anything goes wrong - any advice on how to proceed?

    Thanks


  • #56
    gimli2112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    don't hire the two lads in this story

    get a fully licenced insured contractor to do it

    tell your Insurers beforehand and see if they have any comment


  • #57
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    exactly which we don't have, unless the Insurers specifically endorsed the cover out, which I don't believe they would as no-one would buy their policy the standard policy would cover it

    this is true but the insured described an accident not someone purposefully jumping out of a tree

    again correct but my point all along is there is an insurable event here, if the injured party brings his brother, who presumably could not afford the cost the insured party will foot the bill, not that it will get to court anyway as the Insurer will settle well before then

    You have alraedy confirmed that you are unfamiliar with this class of insurance and you're not a lawyer. Ill leave you there


  • #58
    gimli2112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    You have alraedy confirmed that you are unfamiliar with this class of insurance and you're not a lawyer. Ill leave you there

    as much as it pains me to say it insurance is my kung fu and it is strong


  • #59
    Skerries
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,557 ✭✭✭✭Skerries


    any update on what happened to the car you sold that was clocked?
    Untitled Image




  • #60
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    as much as it pains me to say it insurance is my kung fu and it is strong

    But you're as qualified to talk on liability insurance as the two uncles are to chop trees


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    gimli2112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    nope I actually have an insurance qualification
    I couldn't tell you anything about chopping down trees except be careful


  • #62
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    gimli2112 wrote: »
    nope I actually have an insurance qualificationl

    Without covering liability insurance? Must be easier get these days


  • #63
    gimli2112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    Without covering liability insurance? Must be easier get these days

    yup sure is, some of the questions in the exams were wrong


  • #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Iodine1 wrote: »
    As far as I can see the man was not injured by the chainsaw. So it was not a chainsaw accident.


    I wonder. While not hurt directly by the chainsaw a tree will be cut a lot faster than if cut by a saw or hatchet, so it may not be so clear cut (pun not intended).


  • #65
    Lenar3556
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Lenar3556


    On the facts provided, I would believe the farmers potential liability to be tenuous as best, yet the full story is not known.

    However if he were to be found to have at least some liability, I would have every expectation that a typical farm policy would extend cover to defence and settlement costs in these circumstances.

    The standard FBD ‘multi peril’ farm policy doesn’t mention chainsaws - nor would I have expected it to - chainsaws are a staple machine on most farms. A policy endorsed with too many exclusions of that nature simply wouldn’t sell.


  • #66
    wildwillow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,185 ✭✭✭wildwillow


    mojesius wrote: »
    Sorry to hijack the thread but I have a similar question. We are due to move into a new home and the previous owner told us that neighbours asked if they could cut down a tree on our land that's blocking their view. It's not a particularly nice tree so we are happy to oblige once we speak with them.

    However, it's sounds like we could be liable if anything goes wrong - any advice on how to proceed?

    Thanks

    The OP's story should be a lesson for you. Do not allow anyone without training and their own insurance do any work on your premises. If the tree is not bothering you, let it be.
    If they really want to remove it, your terms are that a qualified and insured person deals with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Lenar3556 wrote: »
    On the facts provided, I would believe the farmers potential liability to be tenuous as best, yet the full story is not known.

    However if he were to be found to have at least some liability, I would have every expectation that a typical farm policy would extend cover to defence and settlement costs in these circumstances.

    The standard FBD ‘multi peril’ farm policy doesn’t mention chainsaws - nor would I have expected it to - chainsaws are a staple machine on most farms. A policy endorsed with too many exclusions of that nature simply wouldn’t sell.

    It's a standard farming activity, but it's reasonable for an insurer to include a condition that the work be carried out by trained and qualified persons. It is standard practice to include similar conditions for other trades. Scaffolding, spray painting, working at height, burning of waste etc. Policy wording (including schedule) is king


  • #68
    Esel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,507 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    bobbyy gee wrote: »
    Copy/paste wall of text
    Why the hell didn't you just post a link? No fun scrolling past your 'post'.

    Not your ornery onager



  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Esel wrote: »
    Why the hell didn't you just post a link? No fun scrolling past your 'post'.

    There was commentary in it as well. Some of us appreciated it :p


  • #70
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator: bobbyy gee, please do not post copy pasta from google and or other sites. We all have access to google. Not appropriately attributing sources is against the forum charter also.

    Thanks.


Advertisement