Falling tree on my car , is anybody liable ?

Furriehugo

I was driving to work , minding my own business, on a local A road, when a huge section of a roadside tree snapped off and fell directly onto my car.

The car (a less than year old Audi A5) suffered damage which has now been assessed as four thousand pounds worth, new wing, bonnet, screen, front grille, lots of paint. I luckily was fine, apart from being showered in glass fragments.

I have had to hire a replacement car for a month, and with the excess on my insurance I will be approximately £900 in debt.

The county council were quick to point me in the direction of the land owner at the side of the road, claiming they had no liability for a roadside tree. I have now identified whom owns the land that borders the accident site. The question is, do I have any legitimate claim to recoup my losses from the owner of the tree ?

Or do I have to accept that this is an "act of god" and swallow the losses ?

Torry_Quine

Unless the tree was known to be at risk of falling and the land-owner did nothing then they aren't liable.

Doesn't your insurance give you a courtesy car while yours is fixed?

TrickyWicky

Trees typically fall under acts of god and many insurers simply won't pay out for it. We had one in the back garden that went through the neighbours fence. The neighbour was decent enough to buy new fence panels but the insurers refused to reimburse him saying it was an act of god and therefore not covered.

You could still try but I dont like your chances and suspect that you'll have to claim on your own insurance or at least speak to their legal protection team if you have legal protection.

dacouch

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Unless the tree was known to be at risk of falling and the land-owner did nothing then they aren't liable.

Doesn't your insurance give you a courtesy car while yours is fixed?

Liability claims can sometimes be paid if the landowner cannot demonstrate they have have a system in place to check the trees

usignuolo

Same thing happened to my son while he was parked in a road next to a park. Large tree branch suddenly broke and fell on his car and smashed in the roof. Fortunately he was not in it at the time. He could not get insurers to pay up or landowners - both quoted act of god. Wonder if anyone would have been liable if he had been inside it at the time?

InsideInsurance

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Trees typically fall under acts of god and many insurers simply won't pay out for it. We had one in the back garden that went through the neighbours fence. The neighbour was decent enough to buy new fence panels but the insurers refused to reimburse him saying it was an act of god and therefore not covered.

You could still try but I dont like your chances and suspect that you'll have to claim on your own insurance or at least speak to their legal protection team if you have legal protection.

"Act of God" is a defence in claims from a Third Party but is irrelevant on First Party claims.

To be able to claim from the third party (the owner of the tree) you would have to prove an act of negligence. Namely that there was a known issue with the tree and they hadn't done anything about it (and had had reasonable time to do something).

There is one case that is frequently used in liability training where a person is driving along the road at 15 mph above the speed limit and a tree falls from his side of the road across the road. An oncoming vehicle manages to stop but the speeding driver swerves to go through the leafy bit rather than hit the trunk and hits the stationary vehicle.

In that case the tree owner was found 100% liable as it was known to be rotten and it was considered reasonable for the driver to want to minimise the risk by hitting the branches/ leaves rather than the main trunk


You should speak to your insurers and push for them to appoint someone in their Recoveries team to look into the claim and see if they can get anything back from the land owner

alastairq

what about 'public liability' cover?

Does that not come into pal when something we 'own' causes hurt or damage to another?

InsideInsurance

alastairq wrote: »

what about 'public liability' cover?

Does that not come into pal when something we 'own' causes hurt or damage to another?

Yes, IF you are liable. So if the OP insurers decides to pursue the landowner and they have PL cover then they may well pass it to them to defend and you'll get the two insurers arguing it out

londonTiger

surely doesn't weather condition play a part? I can understand if a hurricane or heavy storm caused several trees to collapse. But if it's moderate weather and just this one tree out of hundreds in the area, doesn't that allude to the tree being rotten?

Ectophile

londonTiger wrote: »

surely doesn't weather condition play a part? I can understand if a hurricane or heavy storm caused several trees to collapse. But if it's moderate weather and just this one tree out of hundreds in the area, doesn't that allude to the tree being rotten?

It may allude to the tree being rotten, but what really matters is whether the owner knew or should have known that it was rotten.

Some trees look perfectly healthy on the outside, but are rotting away in the middle.

londonTiger

really surprised by that, I would have though the tree owner would have the responsibility to maintain the tree. WHich would involve hiring a tree surgeon to take care of any rot and regular inspections.

Having said that, I can understand why the law would allow for this "amnesty" for lack of a better word.

Otherwise nobody would dare plant a tree in their property for the endless list of liabilities that could arise if owner was culpable for the tree like a pet owner would be for the pets.;