Damage to car from neigbours trampoline

splishsplash

I do wonder at the logic of people who say 'is it worth falling out with your neighbour over £300?'. Surely that is a question for the neighbour, not the OP?

OP, if I were you, I would take him to small claims court.

Good luck with it, I hope you get it sorted. Your neighbour sounds like a prat.

jimjames

unholyangel wrote: »

Perhaps....if that reasonable person lived in an alternative reality where wind is weaker than people & doesn't follow the laws of physics that exist in this reality might have needed 2 people due to size rather than weight.

We had a 12ft trampoline in the garden for almost 10 years. Despite all the high winds in that time it never moved and was not secured. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a heavy item is unlikely to move.

unholyangel

jimjames wrote: »

We had a 12ft trampoline in the garden for almost 10 years. Despite all the high winds in that time it never moved and was not secured. I think it's a reasonable assumption that a heavy item is unlikely to move.

Its weight is relative to the wind speed, direct and the location & siting of the trampoline.

No enclosures (whether natural or man made) around it acting as a windbreak for example. Living in a sheltered valley compared to the peak of a hill. A mesh trampoline (which will allow the air to pass) versus one thats solid.

We're well accustomed to strong winds here. Bridges can be closed in high winds - with them being closed to high sided vehicles at much lower wind speeds than it takes to close them to cars. A hgv weighs more than a car....by everyones logic here, that should make them less at risk, not more!

TooManyPoints

I fail to understand the dichotomy here. Viewpoint one suggests that it might be deemed negligent to fail to put one's car in a garage (when it never usually lives there and the facilities may not be available anyway). Viewpoint two suggests it may not be deemed negligent to leave a large trampoline in high winds and unsecured in a front garden (where people and vehicles may be at risk if it takes off) . If someone can reconcile those two viewpoints for me I'd be glad to listen but other than that, I'm out.

Tokk

TooManyPoints wrote: »

I fail to understand the dichotomy here. Viewpoint one suggests that it might be deemed negligent to fail to put one's car in a garage (when it never usually lives there and the facilities may not be available anyway). Viewpoint two suggests it may not be deemed negligent to leave a large trampoline in high winds and unsecured in a front garden (where people and vehicles may be at risk if it takes off) . If someone can reconcile those two viewpoints for me I'd be glad to listen but other than that, I'm out.

There's also an assumption that the garage is even usable... Many cars these days are pretty big and many garages (especially with older properties) are pretty tight, especially if you need to store other things in there.

Unless there's negligence then it's not really either parties fault entirely (and the 50/50 offer somewhat reasonable IMHO).
I've always been under the impression that negligence is a high bar... I can see how it could've just not occurred to the neighbour, but it probably should've done.

Surely this is what insurance is for and if the neighbour is liable then your insurance costs can be claimed back from his home insurance provider?

TooManyPoints

If the neighbour is liable then the OP has no need to trouble his insurer.

Hunter_Jaeger

jimjames wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a heavy item is unlikely to move.

Explain that to our static caravan that we lived in whilst building our house. It ended up rolling four times on the neighbours lawn and my insurers paid out because I hadn't secured it!

So no it isn't a reasonable assumption it is negligence.

Arklight

Have you tried t-cut?

Car_54

jimjames wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a heavy item is unlikely to move.

An Airbus 319 weighs 41 tonnes, which I think qualifies as heavy. It moved me from Inverness to Gatwick yesterday.

facade

unholyangel wrote: »

Perhaps....if that reasonable person lived in an alternative reality where wind is weaker than people & doesn't follow the laws of physics that exist in this reality.

Anything that has a large flat surface area is prone to high winds. The larger the surface, the greater it will be affected by the wind (which is why sails on a boat are big sheets and not strips). Wind can take out double decker buses, hgvs, fences (that are actually secured in the ground) etc. How many people do you think it would take to carry a hgv or bus? Heck even buildings sway in high winds/at heights where wind is stronger.

I know that, but does everybody?, and more importantly, what would a court think about whether someone is negligent because they didn't know, or consider it?



I know that trampolines fly through the air and land on cars because I've read about it on here.

If I hadn't heard about it happening, would I have thought to nail down the kid's trampoline, when my head is full of thoughts of paying the bills, keeping them safe & amused and how not to get my car stolen?



Probably not.