[Article] Dubliners claiming over sap damage

Victor

Maybe its me, but isn't this like complaining about leaf fall or pigeon droppings falling from a tree perch?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0107/sap.html

Dubliners claiming over sap damage
Monday, 7 January 2008 22:17
Residents in a number of Dublin suburbs have made claims against Dublin City Council over damage caused to their cars by sap which comes from trees.

Over the past two years Dublin City Council say they have received half a dozen claims from residents in Raheny, Glasnevin and Ballsbridge.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council have also received a number of complaints.

AdvertisementThe main cause of this problem is maples and lime trees which line the streets of many Dublin suburbs.

During the spring and summer months they attract greenfly that produces a sticky substance which then falls on whatever is below the tree.

But Dublin City Council say they are strongly disputing the claims.

They say tree sap is a natural occurrence which they cannot prevent.

They also pointed out that trees do more good than harm to an area.

The Council say they have changed the species of trees planted in newer developments to prevent the problem occurring.

But the Labour Party say where damage has occurred residents should be compensated and the problem rectified.

Raheny Councillor Sean Kenny called on Dublin City Council to carry out an audit of trees to establish the extent of the problem.

He said trees would not need to be uprooted but suggested pruning as a possible solution.

Tom Young

So many jokes, so little time!

hada

read this while I actually was in dublin yesterday...

laughed my ass off on the luas so much that people were starting to give me dirty looks.

My favourite line is "Sean Kenny called on Dublin City Council to carry out an audit of trees"

an audit of trees??... sigh...

Tom Young

Send in the huggers!

johnnyskeleton

Is this, um, a rylands v fletcher case? I suppose they could argue that the Corpo was bringing an unnatural hazard onto the land (in that the trees were not indigenous to Dublin), however, it seems to me that the greenfly coming in was an Act of Lord Denning*, and so liability cannot arise. That is, assuming rylands v fletcher still exists (I think the English have done away with it as a separate tort and added it to nuisance).









*Or God, whoever.

Tom Young

I was thinking more along the lines of Healy v Bray UDC 1963, judgment of Kingsmill-Moore J. "Escape of Rocks" and natural passage of time logic, ergo not really justiciable.

Rule in R&F requires Plaintiff to show damage and may allow suit to follow.

Some exceptions: Acts of Stranger: Benther v Benther (Drunk driver). Act of God: Superquinn v Bray UDC, Laffoy J. Statutory Authority and Consent of Plaintiffs: Victor Weston v Kenny *(Didn't apply R&F rule).

The test per Blackburn LJ is prima facie case based on damage for escape from/onto land.

Can it be really said that this is a R&F case? I suspect not. There is statutory authority defence and also a general consent which I suspect would be subject to statute of limitation type argument.

Victor

Would it matter:

If the cars were on private property, the public road or a third party's private property.

If the trees were on the public road or a third party's private property.

If the trees and / or the greenfly were there before the cars / road / houses.

Third party could of course include the / a council in the case of council offices, depots, (gated) parks, etc.

Rhonda9000

Tom Young wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of Healy v Bray UDC 1963, judgment of Kingsmill-Moore J. "Escape of Rocks" and natural passage of time logic, ergo not really justiciable.

Rule in R&F requires Plaintiff to show damage and may allow suit to follow.

Some exceptions: Acts of Stranger: Benther v Benther (Drunk driver). Act of God: Superquinn v Bray UDC, Laffoy J. Statutory Authority and Consent of Plaintiffs: Victor Weston v Kenny *(Didn't apply R&F rule).

The test per Blackburn LJ is prima facie case based on damage for escape from/onto land.

Can it be really said that this is a R&F case? I suspect not. There is statutory authority defence and also a general consent which I suspect would be subject to statute of limitation type argument.

The one about the rock dislodging and rolling around always made me chuckle (but the poor divil of a plaintiff all the same). Also the 'escape' case -whose name escapes me- about the itinerants defecating in/on the disused old brick yard. Who ever said tort wasn't entertaining.

po0k

"Garage"

Tom Young

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

The one about the rock dislodging and rolling around always made me chuckle (but the poor divil of a plaintiff all the same). Also the 'escape' case -whose name escapes me- about the itinerants defecating in/on the disused old brick yard. Who ever said tort wasn't entertaining.

The one about the ectopic testicle has always resonated with me, like you wouldn't notice!?

I know Ireland was a little dark ages, but that's taking the mickey (excuse the pun!).

Statute barred!?

ejmaztec

Act of God? He moves in mysterious ways.

Tom Young

Well he made a balls-up of that particular transaction

mikemac

They said compo culture was over.......obviously not

Tom Young

Not and it appears we may have some tree huggers make a return. I can see it now, Glen of the Downs part two (For those too remote or young, that was a scenario where a pile of tree huggers and new age travellers [who smelled] entrenched themselves in tunnels in an area of woodland in County Wicklow. This was in order to protest at road widening plans which were drastically required).

As the economy slumps (further) I expect compo will become more prolific. Building tort and flawed developments will make a nice practice piece for some lawyers and also make the Monday morning lists in the High Court for the various bodies most interesting too.

I am not Eddie Hobbs, I swear.