Branch damaged car - who is liable?

pja75

Yesterday a large branch fell onto my car and badly damaged the bonnet. I was parked legally in a private car park at my place of work - which is surrounded by large trees.

I know that the company are responsible for the maintenance of the trees as they have people come to check them for their safety - and did so recently. This branch was large enough to have broken someones neck or worse, had it fallen on them instead of a car.

Is the company liable for my damage at all? My boss is sending photo's over to head office to ask the question, but if it's a 'no', am I in a position to argue, or is it my own responsibility to pay for damage as it wasn't really technically anyones fault?

Thanks for any advice.

Retrogamer

You would only be able to claim from the landowner if you can prove they were negligent, but as this seems a random accident it seems unlikely.

InsideInsurance

Was there any obvious signs of rot in the tree/ branch?

Presumably your area of the country was hit by the very high winds most of us suffered yesterday?

Generally the answer is no one is liable. If you think someone is then its up to you to prove it. Most liability comes from an act of negligence and so you'd have to prove they'd failed to do something that a reasonable person/ company would have.

Normally this would mean that the owner of the tree should have been aware that it was rotten and had done nothing to resolve the issue. Councils and some other public bodies have a higher duty of care and so also have to show that they are routinely checking etc but you say that your company does use specialists to check so sounds like they are potentially going beyond their normal duties already.

Strider590

We have an old oak tree in the work car park, in the summer you can see one very large branch is actually dead.
Despite the shortage of parking, I refused to park under it unless I had no choice (told to by a manager), but I made a formal complaint (by email) about the tree and the potential safety hazard this branch presents.

Basically, they can potentially wriggle out of liability if they were not made aware of the hazard.

marlot

As said, it comes down to negligence. Unless you can prove they have been negligent your claim fails.

When our neighbour had a dying tree, I made sure to tell them in writing. When it came down six months later and damaged my fence they paid up pretty quickly. They could have had it taken down had they wished.

maninthestreet

One for the police - Special Branch ???

SeduLOUs

You said the trees are checked for safety regularly and were checked recently, so assuming that the check was more than just a minimum wage monkey having a quick glance, and that any advice in a report was acted on, it's probable that negligence is going to be impossible to prove as the company are already taking reasonable steps to avoid exactly this sort of thing.

Double_V

SeduLOUs wrote: »

You said the trees are checked for safety regularly and were checked recently, so assuming that the check was more than just a minimum wage monkey having a quick glance, and that any advice in a report was acted on, it's probable that negligence is going to be impossible to prove as the company are already taking reasonable steps to avoid exactly this sort of thing.

Yeah but if the company is paying somebody to check the trees that means they did not do the job properly and should be liable.
So the company can hold them liable.
?

InsideInsurance

Double_V wrote: »

Yeah but if the company is paying somebody to check the trees that means they did not do the job properly and should be liable.
So the company can hold them liable.
?

The company cannot hold them liable as they company hasnt suffered a loss.

If there was a case against the company then they may either counter claim against the tree inspectors or bring them in as co-defendant etc

This all depends on what was actually said in the last report and how accurate that was - it is possible for a tree to look perfectly healthy and yet have problems. It may have been obviously dead and was reported as such or maybe not reported as such.

SeduLOUs

Double_V wrote: »

Yeah but if the company is paying somebody to check the trees that means they did not do the job properly and should be liable.
So the company can hold them liable.
?

As I said in my post, if we go on the assumption that the check was carried out properly, and that any advice was acted on by the employer, then negligence will be very hard to prove.

The trees may well have been deemed 'safe' in normal circumstances, but no report can be 100% certain that trees will stand in absolutely all circumstances. All the employer has to do is what is reasonable - regularly checking the trees are safe in normal conditions is reasonable.

If the check was carried out by some monkeys, and didn't really constitute a check at all, or a report advised that the tree was dangerous and the employer failed to act on it, then the evidence the OP needs to prove the employer's negligence may have been handed to him on a plate.

Without knowing what the checks actually involved, what the reports said, or what actions were (or weren't) taken based on those reports, it's impossible to say.

straighttalker

Given that there is evidence that the company responsible for the trees recently had someone out to check them, you've got to assume that they've discharged their duty to inspect the trees for safety.

I think it all boils down to it being an act of god.

If it is viewed as an act of god, your car insurer will just pay out and it will count as a claim against you just as if you'd driven your car into a wall by accident. Doesn't sound fair but that's the way the insurer will work I'm afraid.