Law Suit - injured by tree being cut down

tinchento

Just looking for advice.

had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission. An accident occurred where a tree one uncle was cutting fell on other and he suffered serious injuries to his hip and 2 broken legs.

Injured uncle is now taking a case against the farmer and the other uncle who is now worried sick he may have to pay compensation which he does not have. The farmer has farm insurance. in a situation like this, does compensation lie with the insurance company as the farmer had given permission to be on his land to cut the trees or would the uninjured person be liable to pay compensation to the injured person?

Lenar3556

tinchento wrote: »

Just looking for advice.

had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission. An accident occurred where a tree one uncle was cutting fell on other and he suffered serious injuries to his hip and 2 broken legs.

Injured uncle is now taking a case against the farmer and the other uncle who is now worried sick he may have to pay compensation which he does not have. The farmer has farm insurance. in a situation like this, does compensation lie with the insurance company as the farmer had given permission to be on his land to cut the trees or would the uninjured person be liable to pay compensation to the injured person?

A sad case.

The question is one of negligence.

Was the farmer negligent in granting them permission to cut down trees? - The facts would need to be better understood, but I don’t see an obvious case of negligence here.

Was the uncle operating the chainsaw negligent in the manner he was cutting the tree such that it fell on the injured party - possibly.

Were the two donkeys the author of their own misfortune cutting trees without adequate safety measures?

I would favour the latter.

nuac

Mod
Open for general discussion subject to forum rules on legal advice

MIKEKC

Lenar3556 wrote: »

A sad case.

The question is one of negligence.

Was the farmer negligent in granting them permission to cut down trees? - The facts would need to be better understood, but I don’t see an obvious case of negligence here.

Was the uncle operating the chainsaw negligent in the manner he was cutting the tree such that it fell on the injured party - possibly.

Were the two donkeys the author of their own misfortune cutting trees without adequate safety measures?

I would favour the latter.

A lot of insurance policies only give cover if chainsaw operator has ticket

nthclare

Usually there's a risk assessment made before you cut down a tree and it's all about making the right cuts, from top to bottom.

Weight distribution is a big assessment because one false e move and it could be game over or someone could cut their leg off.

Also it's handy to have done a chainsaw course

I've seen absolutely horrific injuries on YouTube because of people who lack self awareness and are not great at physics and risk assessments...

So sorry to hear about the accident I hope whatever happens it will be sorted out with the least amount of stress..

listermint

Well one thing's for sure.

He will lose a family member by proceeding with it.

Mad_maxx

i got hurt in the summer of june 2018 helping out someone who was entirely negligent , they chose to be beligerent however and were affronted that i would seek compensation , im already out about 5 k as the pain has not went away and i spend a fair bit on meds , never mind consultants etc , ive no private health insurance having foolishly stopped paying it in 2013 after twelve years

i consulted a solicitor , went through PIAB but the other side refused to engage on any level , in the end i was told it would cost 17 k to go to the civil court and i was unlikely to get more than the cost of going there at best as my issue is one of chronic pain

made the call not to proceed in the end as while i was pretty sure to win , a moral victory at that price was too expensive

insurance is only ever a $ opportunity when it comes to road accidents where the person at fault is compelled by law to be decent , not so with public liability

this case involves broken legs which is more relatable than a soft tissue injury which is vague by definition to prove but if the person being sued doesnt play ball , its still not easy by any means

Peregrinus

tinchento wrote: »

. . . had 2 uncles cutting down trees with a chainsaw for a farmer with his permission . . .

They were cutting down trees for the farmer with his permission.

This is a bit confusing. If they were cutting down the trees for the farmer, this suggests that he wanted the trees cut down, and asked these two to do it. If so, what did he "give permission" for? Did he give them permission to do what he had already asked them to do? That doesn't make sense.

Or, if he gave them permission to cut down the trees, that suggests that they wanted to take the trees down and he agreed to let them. But, if that's the case, in what sense were they taking the trees down "for the farmer"?

I think it would help to clarify who wanted to cut the trees down and who was doing a service for who here.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

They were cutting down trees for the farmer with his permission.

This is a bit confusing.

I thought the same, assumed the OP emphasised they had permission to do what they did, but worth asking.

tinchento

Thanks for all the advice.

The farmer asked them to clear the trees as they were obstructive and cut up as firewood. All 3 would then share the firewood.

tinchento

tinchento wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.

The farmer asked them to clear the trees as they were obstructive and cut up as firewood. All 3 would then share the firewood.

Unless they were qualified contractors with insurance that's a very silly farmer.

Large bottle small glass

The farmer has a duty of care to invitees on his land.

He allowed in chainsaw operators of questionable competence to cut his trees for him; did he check for certs, do risk assessment etc?

As a landowner I specifically asked what my policy covered when I "employed" someone on farm, most casual work was covered but chainsaw work was specifically not covered and users needed to have their own specific insurance and certificates for chainsaw work.

The farmer will be on the hook imo but he may not be insured for it. If he has land he is a mark and is in for a tough time.

Mango Joe

There were only two chainsaw-wielding Uncles present in this Farmers field.

Presumably there was a maximum of 2 trees being simultaneously cut down at any one instant in time by said Uncles.

For one Uncle to unwittingly put himself in harms way beneath a tree being cut down by the only remaining Uncle present was some feat.

Personal responsibility used to be a thing.

If the Farmer was off watching Netflix at the time it's hard to see why the deaf, blind, injudicious Uncle (Uncles?) should be allowed make his life a living misery.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless they were qualified contractors with insurance that's a very silly farmer.

it's normal enough for people to know people, you'd just expect them to stand away from the path of a falling tree

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's normal enough for people to know people, you'd just expect them to stand away from the path of a falling tree

Yeah, and people get sued all the time.

amadangomor

Chainsaws are deadly and there should be a license for their use.

Too many amateur's going around endangering themselves and others

thomas anderson.

Following this out of interest because I cannot fathom how the injured party is holding the farmer liable.

sydthebeat

listermint wrote: »

Well one thing's for sure.

He will lose a family member by proceeding with it.

not at all

im sure the uncle knows the other uncle doesnt have insurance, but is after the farmers insurance solely

in ireland we have a thing called the 1% rule... where even if you are found to be 1% negligent, but you have insurance, you can be forced to pay 100% of the compensation if the other named parties in a case have no insurance

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Following this out of interest because I cannot fathom how the injured party is holding the farmer liable.

Farmer shouldn't have allowed under qualified operatives to undertake such an exercise on his property, they likely had no specific insurance cover

hullaballoo

This is very tenuous.

It is not a classic relationship that would tend to give rise to any particular onus on the farmer that I can think of. There are a few almost nearly theres but nothing I'd be happy to recommend.

Peregrinus was not asking idle questions; they were quite incisive.

The nature of the relationship is key here to establish who might owe who what duty and in my reading of what happened, it seems like one where the 1% rule sydthebeat mentions as being about the only avenue for the injured uncle. Even with that quite generous rule, there would surely be difficulties for the injured uncle.

It's unlikely that the injured uncle is actually looking to get money from the other uncle, though it would of course be helpful for any ongoing relationships if the two talked about it.

^^^ that's heartening to hear.

Peregrinus

amadangomor wrote: »

Chainsaws are deadly . . .

They are. In a former job I used to have a bit to do with injuries occasioned to Coillte workers. You cannot believe what a momentary slip with a chainsaw can do.

But this was not a chainsaw accident. The fact that chainsaws were used doesn't seem to have contributed to the injuries, so far as we can tell from the limited info in the OP.

Eggs For Dinner

sydthebeat wrote: »

not at all

im sure the uncle knows the other uncle doesnt have insurance, but is after the farmers insurance solely

in ireland we have a thing called the 1% rule... where even if you are found to be 1% negligent, but you have insurance, you can be forced to pay 100% of the compensation if the other named parties in a case have no insurance

If the farmer is held 1% or 100% liable and his insurance contains an exclusion for the use of chainsaws, then they will not provide indemnity to to farmer. He will have to compensate a successful claimant from his own funds

thomas anderson.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Farmer shouldn't have allowed under qualified operatives to undertake such an exercise on his property, they likely had no specific insurance cover

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

thomas anderson.

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

Free firewood

Detritus70

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

I'm happy to call compo culture for people who bang their knee on table legs at the restaurant or get hit by flying coins from a lawnmower. I'd call these people greedy money-grubbers all day long and I won't entertain any counterargument.
But in this case a man I seriously injured, this is something entirely different. This is not something you laugh off as friends.

wildwillow

The farmer shouldn't have allowed them near the trees. He should have checked their competence in chainsaw use and training for tree felling and their insurance.

Even if chainsaw use is covered in his farm insurance, it would not apply to these two.

This case is exactly why only fully qualified and insured contractors should be used for tree cutting.

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Then why would 2 grown men undertake a job that they were neither insured for or adequately qualified to do?

This is once again compo culture at its finest.

I'm saying the farmer was foolish , not defending the sub competence of the other two individuals

thomas anderson.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I'm saying the farmer was foolish , not defending the sub competence of the other two individuals

I don't think he was foolish, I think the 2 uncles were being opportunistic.

Holding the farmer hostage for their own incompetence is reprehensible.

wildwillow

The farmer should know his responsibility towards people he had "invited" onto his land.

He was benifitting from the job, getting trees cut and getting firewood. Even if he didn't instigate the work, he allowed it and was giving them recompense for their work in the form of firewood.

If you are a person on any means, as in a farmer, you need to consider these type of situations very carefully.

Eggs For Dinner

Detritus70 wrote: »

I'm happy to call compo culture for people who bang their knee on table legs at the restaurant or get hit by flying coins from a lawnmower. I'd call these people greedy money-grubbers all day long and I won't entertain any counterargument.
But in this case a man I seriously injured, this is something entirely different. This is not something you laugh off as friends.

The serious outcome of an event does not impose liability on a person. He either was or wasn't negligent owing a duty of care