Damage to car from neigbours trampoline

Aretnap

unholyangel wrote: »

You might be surprised on the standard a court applies. Motor accidents is a great example of that. Many people on here proclaim if its not a "must" rule in THC then you don't need to follow it - but a reasonably prudent driver is (according to the courts) one that drives in accordance with THC. There are many cases of people exercising a greater degree of care than the majority, yet they're still found to be negligent.

This is true. However car accidents are something of a special case, given that driving a car is by far the most dangerous thing that most people do on a regular basis, at least as far as risks to other people go. The fact that car accidents regularly cause death and destruction is known to everybody. People who want to drive a car have to apply for a licence and pass theory and practical tests. The government publishes guidelines on driving safely (the Highway Code); these guidelines have legal force and form part of the driving test. Road safety campaigns run more or less constantly... and so on and so forth. So it seems reasonable to apply a higher standard of care to someone driving a car than to someone doing some other, less obviously dangerous and less heavily regulated, activity.


This doesn't necessarily mean that I think the OP's neighbour wasn'\t negligent. I just don't think it's quite as blindingly obvious that he was as some people in the thread do.

Aretnap

TooManyPoints wrote: »

What you must bear in mind is that his insurers may apply a different test to a court. A court's likely test has been explained well enough here. His insurer's test may be along the lines "Can we get away without paying out for this?" If they refuse you should remember that any claim you have is against your neighbour, not his insurers. Nothing prevents you from pursuing your claim as suggested. Where he gets the cash from should you be successful is his business.

He would get the cash from his insurers, who would cover his liabilities if he were found liable. The insurers would not decide, arbitrarily, that they don't want to cover him. What they might do is say something to the effect of "Go away, we don't think he's liable, take him to court if you disagree". If the OP subsequently took him to court, he would (if he's sensible) hand the case over to his insurers, who would defend the claim on his behalf and pay any damages that were awarded against him. Or alternatively they might just decide to pay out a few hundred quid to avoid the expense and hassle of a court case.

unholyangel

Aretnap wrote: »

This is true. However car accidents are something of a special case, given that driving a car is by far the most dangerous thing that most people do on a regular basis, at least as far as risks to other people go. The fact that car accidents regularly cause death and destruction is known to everybody. People who want to drive a car have to apply for a licence and pass theory and practical tests. The government publishes guidelines on driving safely (the Highway Code); these guidelines have legal force and form part of the driving test. Road safety campaigns run more or less constantly... and so on and so forth. So it seems reasonable to apply a higher standard of care to someone driving a car than to someone doing some other, less obviously dangerous and less heavily regulated, activity.


This doesn't necessarily mean that I think the OP's neighbour wasn'\t negligent. I just don't think it's quite as blindingly obvious that he was as some people in the thread do.

I used motoring accidents as an example due to the board we're on but the same principle applies on other property damage cases under tort. Read previous judgements and you'll see what I mean. Sometimes you can see the sense in their judgements. Other times you're left wondering why on earth the defendant was found liable when it seemed to be wholly down to the claimant not taking care.

Slip/trip/fall cases can provide some examples of that, although they tend to be split liability.

As I said in my previous post, we're not in possession of all relevant facts. Even if we were....our "judgement" isn't the one that matters.

couriervanman

Arklight wrote: »

I can't believe all this silliness. Take the £300, say thanks, and move on. He didn't pick the trampoline up and drop it on your car. It was bad weather and (both your) bad luck.

But he didn't secure it so he's liable.......and if neighbour falls out with the OP so what he's trying it on,why should he be £300 down or loss of no claims

The trampoline would have come with info and fixing points/hooks for bad weather

Hm121

For anyone interested in the outcome, his home insurance admitted liability and agreed to pay the full repair cost, so good result overall.

littleboo

Well done, the right outcome

mattyprice4004

That's fantastic news, and absolutely the way it should have gone

photome

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

That's fantastic news, and absolutely the way it should have gone

agreed, despite many on here who said the Op was negligent/ the Op should accept half etc etc

Aylesbury_Duck

photome wrote: »

agreed, despite many on here who said the Op was negligent/ the Op should accept half etc etc

I can't speak for others who suggested that but I stand by the view that accepting what was offered and not ending up with an enemy neighbour was a pragmatic approach. Very few situations are solely financial. You never know when you might need a neighbour's help or cooperation and for the sake of £300 it's not always worth digging your heels in to prove a point. I think OP later explained that there was already a difficult relationship with the neighbour, so in this case I doubt it would have helped.

Hm121

Sorry it won't let me quote on my phone but @aylesbury duck:

Yes I agree that no one wants to make a enemy of a neighbour but if he had come to me and was honest and aplologized like he meant it and if he couldn't afford it then I probably would of let it slide but what he did was come into my house and sit their and stated he wasn't responsible for any of it and he would only pay half because he didn't want to fall out over it, I wasn't his friend before any of this and now I think even less of him, he's nothing more then a harmless moron. And to be honest if the insurance hadn't followed through then I would of taken him to court just out of spite because he really annoyed me with his attitude. You may think I'm being a petty after reading this but in all honestly I like to think I'm a fair and decent person but I don't like to be taken for a fool.