What should I do?

aardvaak

neilmcl wrote: »

I doubt your car insurer will be interested, not unless you have legal cover.

I do have legal cover

aardvaak

DoaM wrote: »

How much is a replacement wing mirror going to cost? Is it colour-coded? Can you get a replacement from a scrapyard?

I don't know at present but you have good point about visiting a scrapyard - they still charge but will be cheaper

facade

aardvaak wrote: »

I do have legal cover

If you read the 6 point type of the T&Cs, they will only use this if the odds are in favour of you winning.

For negligence on the owner's part, you will require proof that he was aware of the danger the tree posed and had done nothing in a reasonable time. A local telling you that several people have hit it is not proof that he is aware.

The insurance will merrily pay as an at fault claim, and load the policy/reduce the NCD to recover their money and more.

You might be better off with a small claim.

unholyangel

aardvaak wrote: »

Yes I suppose it could be said to be my fault for hitting it but if it wasn't there I obviously wouldn't have - He should of spotted any trees likly to fall (this appears dead) and would of been obvious for some time and at the very least should of removed it when originally told (has been told on multiple occasions).
This is one of the reasons why we as landowners have public liability cover attached to our home and farm policies.

The same could be said for any road accident. But the general rule is that when a moving object hits a stationary object, its the moving object thats responsible for the collision happening.

For that reason, i suspect best case scenario would be contributory negligence - and imo even if it was, it would be a split significantly in his favour. The way negligence works, you'd need to prove he owed you a duty of care, that he was negligently in breach of that duty, that the breach caused the damage and that the damage was not too remote. Causation generally works on the "but for" principle. Would the accident have happened but for xyz? However there can be multiple causes (either successive or concurrent which usually result in contributory negligence/apportion of blame) and also new intervening acts (of 3rd party and of the claimant). With new intervening acts of the claimant, the test is whether your actions were reasonable or not.

Now while some drivers may have hit this same tree, how many have passed without doing so?