Part of tree fallen on car at work

phil0000 · 2 October 2017 at 2:10PM

Today myself and about 5 others had parts of a tree fall down in the wind and caused lots of dents and scratches.

The cars were parked in our allocated spacing, which is next to a river embankment which has several trees (probably around 60-80 feet high) overhanging the parking lot.

The landlord of the site has asked us to provide name/car reg and picture evidence and has been very polite regarding the matter, non of us are angry at him just upset regarding our vehicles.

Seeing as this is a commercial parking lot, would the landlords insurance be liable for this?

AdrianC · 2 October 2017 at 2:16PM

It sounds like he may well pay for repairs.

Whether he's legally liable to is another question entirely - has he been negligent in maintaining the trees? If not, then he has no liability. If they're not his trees, then he certainly has no liability - the same negligence test would apply to the owner of the trees, whoever that may be.

Shaka_Zulu · 2 October 2017 at 4:35PM

AdrianC wrote: »

It sounds like he may well pay for repairs.

Whether he's legally liable to is another question entirely - has he been negligent in maintaining the trees? If not, then he has no liability. If they're not his trees, then he certainly has no liability - the same negligence test would apply to the owner of the trees, whoever that may be.

Agree with what you say there Adrian. It will probably get more interesting when/if his insurers decide to duck it as "no negligence".

phil0000 · 2 October 2017 at 5:09PM

Hi guys,

Thanks for taking time to reply to this.

The latest is, we received an email stating we need to contact our own insurers regarding the incident and he appears to opted not to do anything regarding the matter at the moment.

He mentions "he has spoken to insurers who advised that because trees have very recently been inspected by a tree surgeon and in turn correct maintained he cannot be hold responsible for the damage"

We have however a total of 7 cars (5 of which have come off worse) that have been damaged. I know tree surgeons have been out because some of the trees at the site have been chopped down in recent weeks, suggesting some had been deemed dangerous, these trees by the river at very tall, were swaying like crazy in the wind which caused concern it would uproot or snap (like one did last year at the other side of the river.)

How do we know the tree surgeons used did their job right? Is there a way of reaffirming what he says, like requesting paperwork etc?

Thanks a lot
Phil

bigadaj · 2 October 2017 at 5:19PM

phil0000 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Thanks for taking time to reply to this.

The latest is, we received an email stating we need to contact our own insurers regarding the incident and he appears to opted not to do anything regarding the matter at the moment.

He mentions "he has spoken to insurers who advised that because trees have very recently been inspected by a tree surgeon and in turn correct maintained he cannot be hold responsible for the damage"

We have however a total of 7 cars (5 of which have come off worse) that have been damaged. I know tree surgeons have been out because some of the trees at the site have been chopped down in recent weeks, suggesting some had been deemed dangerous, these trees by the river at very tall, were swaying like crazy in the wind which caused concern it would uproot or snap (like one did last year at the other side of the river.)

How do we know the tree surgeons used did their job right? Is there a way of reaffirming what he says, like requesting paperwork etc?

Thanks a lot
Phil

You can ask for a copy of the tree surgeons report.

He may argue that this isn't relevant, but as he's immediately used this as part of the argument that they're were checked/ maintained then I'd have said you have a right to see a copy.

AdrianC · 2 October 2017 at 5:27PM

phil0000 wrote: »

The latest is, we received an email stating we need to contact our own insurers regarding the incident and he appears to opted not to do anything regarding the matter at the moment.

He mentions "he has spoken to insurers who advised that because trees have very recently been inspected by a tree surgeon and in turn correct maintained he cannot be hold responsible for the damage"

There y'go, then.

I know tree surgeons have been out because some of the trees at the site have been chopped down in recent weeks, suggesting some had been deemed dangerous

Or, perhaps, suggesting that the landowner has taken their responsibilities seriously, and has had preventative maintenance work done recently, with a professional doing what was felt to be necessary. Ergo, no negligence.

How do we know the tree surgeons used did their job right? Is there a way of reaffirming what he says, like requesting paperwork etc?

That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the LANDOWNER was negligent - and you'd have to prove that he knowingly hired incompetent cowboys.

So let's say you want to go ahead with this... You would need to issue a court claim for the cost of the repair work.

Assuming the landowner was found to be negligent, then the first question likely to be asked if he chooses to defend the claim is why you didn't mitigate your losses by claiming from your own insurance.

You would each need to issue a separate claim for your own losses, rather than some kind of joint claim.

Warwick_Hunt · 2 October 2017 at 5:55PM

AdrianC wrote: »

There y'go, then.

Or, perhaps, suggesting that the landowner has taken their responsibilities seriously, and has had preventative maintenance work done recently, with a professional doing what was felt to be necessary. Ergo, no negligence.

That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the LANDOWNER was negligent - and you'd have to prove that he knowingly hired incompetent cowboys.

So let's say you want to go ahead with this... You would need to issue a court claim for the cost of the repair work.

Assuming the landowner was found to be negligent, then the first question likely to be asked if he chooses to defend the claim is why you didn't mitigate your losses by claiming from your own insurance.

You would each need to issue a separate claim for your own losses, rather than some kind of joint claim.

How is claiming off your own insurance mitigating your loss?

Surely the cost to repair a car is the same regardless of who pays.

Stoke · 2 October 2017 at 6:03PM

This is one of those situations where I always wonder, if you left your car on a slight incline, and the handbrake cable snapped and it rolled away and hit something.... would you be liable?

What about if a flood carried your car and damaged someone elses?

System · 2 October 2017 at 6:45PM

It will most likely be put down to an Act of God especially when he can produce an invoice from tree surgeons.

AdrianC · 2 October 2017 at 6:59PM

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

How is claiming off your own insurance mitigating your loss?

Surely the cost to repair a car is the same regardless of who pays.

Not the cost to you, though.

AdrianC · 2 October 2017 at 7:00PM

Stoke wrote: »

This is one of those situations where I always wonder, if you left your car on a slight incline, and the handbrake cable snapped and it rolled away and hit something.... would you be liable?

Handbrake cables don't just snap without any prior warning, unless the car is very poorly maintained.

Part of tree fallen on car at work

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free