Law Suit - injured by tree being cut down

Mad_maxx

thomas anderson. wrote: »

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.

He was very foolish to let someone cut down tree's who didn't have the proper insurance to carry such an exercise out

thomas anderson.

thomas anderson. wrote: »

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.

Both foolish on the part of the farmer, and opportunistic of one uncle.

KaneToad

I think all parties involved were very foolish and naive. The farmer particularly as he has most to lose (financially). The lads were cutting down his trees, on his land, for payment - the payment being a share of the firewood.

I'm not a legal professional but my 2c is that the farmer is liable.

amadangomor

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Worked as a gardener for a while.

Sometimes I would work with their tree surgeons and always felt safe around them. When a regular gardener picked up a chainsaw I would be concerned.

Got nicked on the toe by one of them, luckily had steel toe boots on.

Del2005

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 problem is that they where happy enough to work away without training or proper insurance, for some free fire wood, and now one is seriously injured they are looking for compensation. If they weren't so greedy in cutting down the trees then this wouldn't of happened, there is a reason why the Government introduced laws requiring training and insurance if doing dangerous work. The only winners in this will be the solicitors.

fergus1001

KaneToad wrote:

I'm not a legal professional but my 2c is that the farmer is liable.

if there was nothing formally agreed it's one party's word against another with no proof of the farmer inviting them onto the land

fergus1001

fergus1001 wrote: »

if there was nothing formally agreed it's one party's word against another with no proof of the farmer inviting them onto the land

Which is why we have Courts to decide these things.

Big thing will be who is the best mark for any payment, so probably the farmer, with some deduction for contributory negligence on the injured party's part, imo.

gimli2112

just looked at a Farm policy online and there's nothing there that jumps out at me that would exclude the uncle's claim against the farmer.
there's a tree felling exclusion but this wouldn't apply, where it's for the insured's own use. This may have some impact but I don't believe it's enough to totally frustrate a claim

it depends on what questions were asked and answered at proposal stage and any endorsements that would apply but it would seem to be covered under a standard wording, oh and provided he's insured with the crowd whose policy I just looked at

FixitFelix

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Not silly, cheap farmer, and now gonna cost him a **** load more

Del2005

gimli2112 wrote: »

just looked at a Farm policy online and there's nothing there that jumps out at me that would exclude the uncle's claim against the farmer.
there's a tree felling exclusion but this wouldn't apply, where it's for the insured's own use. This may have some impact but I don't believe it's enough to totally frustrate a claim

it depends on what questions were asked and answered at proposal stage and any endorsements that would apply but it would seem to be covered under a standard wording, oh and provided he's insured with the crowd whose policy I just looked at

Does the policy cover just you felling trees or others working on your farm felling trees? Everything I read about tree felling always says to make sure that whoever you hire is insured.

gimli2112

I don't see anything in the conditions or exclusions that would exclude it. The two guys could probably be considered employees of the famer. Standard definition of employee would include a self employed person engaged by the insured for their business.

I'm not familiar with this type of policy and don't know what questions are asked in the proposal but on the face of it there's a good argument for cover. In fairness this is the type of thing that people buy such insurance for, if it wasn't covered I'd want to know why not. It seems a genuine accident where someone working on the farm was injured.

His premium will go through the roof mind you.

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't see anything in the conditions or exclusions that would exclude it. The two guys could probably be considered employees of the famer. Standard definition of employee would include a self employed person engaged by the insured for their business.

I'm not familiar with this type of policy and don't know what questions are asked in the proposal but on the face of it there's a good argument for cover. In fairness this is the type of thing that people buy such insurance for, if it wasn't covered I'd want to know why not. It seems a genuine accident where someone working on the farm was injured.

His premium will go through the roof mind you.

Can you link the wording?

Whether there is cover or not, there's no good argument to compensate the farmer to allow untrained, unqualified, unticketed and uninsured people mess around with chainsaws. Insurance is designed to protect against unforeseen accidents and this was waiting to happen

Exclusions on insurance policies are designed to try and prevent such stupidity. However, it doesn't stop some and that's why farms are the most hazardous workplace

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Can you link the wording?

Whether there is cover or not, there's no good argument to compensate the farmer to allow untrained, unqualified, unticketed and uninsured people mess around with chainsaws. Insurance is designed to protect against unforeseen accidents and this was waiting to happen

Exclusions on insurance policies are designed to try and prevent such stupidity. However, it doesn't stop some and that's why farms are the most hazardous workplace

I don't want to cos I work in insurance, just google "farm insurance policy document".
This is a fortuitous event. On the basis the farmer believed they were capable to carry out the task, which there is nothing to say otherwise there is no requirement for him to check they went to chainsaw academy.
Insurance covers stupidity, it doesn't cover willful neglect which is not the case here, in my opinion.
I mean we only have the basic facts, Insurers would investigate and determine if cover applied but on the face of it there's a good argument for indemnity.

Eggs For Dinner

You can't just Google farm insurance policy document and define this as being an insured event. It is quite possible that the farmer's policy (and schedule) contains a specific exclusion for the use of chainsaws or the use of chainsaws by unqualified persons. If it does, the insurers are out of the picture

There would be an expectation that a farmer engage persons competent to carry out tasks. These 2 would be considered contractors. They were performing an individual task, for an agreed price. They provided their own equipment and performed the task without direction from the farmer. Unless there was a unique hazard on the land, I don't see the farmer being liable. The other uncle causing the accident is in bother IMO, with significant contribution from the injured person

Meathman12

wildwillow wrote: »

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

The farmer might deny inviting them to do the job. The uncle's will of course clearly recall his invitation.

But if the cutter was standing in a different farmers field or on the edge of the public road would this complicate things?

Iodine1

This is a much more complex case than we can deal with here. As far as I can see the man was not injured by the chainsaw. So it was not a chainsaw accident. He was injured by a falling tree, knocked by his partner in a contracting type business / arrangement. There will be a lot of investigation before it will be resolved. Not simple at all.

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You can't just Google farm insurance policy document and define this as being an insured event. It is quite possible that the farmer's policy (and schedule) contains a specific exclusion for the use of chainsaws or the use of chainsaws by unqualified persons. If it does, the insurers are out of the picture

There would be an expectation that a farmer engage persons competent to carry out tasks. These 2 would be considered contractors. They were performing an individual task, for an agreed price. They provided their own equipment and performed the task without direction from the farmer. Unless there was a unique hazard on the land, I don't see the farmer being liable. The other uncle causing the accident is in bother IMO, with significant contribution from the injured person

I said that already but, without being familiar with this class of insurance, I would be surprised if there was as this, on the face of it, looks exactly the kind of thing you would take out liability insurance for in the first place.

screamer

wildwillow wrote: »

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.

This is exactly why qualified and insured contractors should be used for everything. Chimney, window and gutter cleaners, painters, you name it, there are chancers out there and there are idiots who avail of their services and end up in a world of hurt.

I’ve no idea in the legalities of this case, but from just a viewpoint the uncles knew what they were undertaking, the farmer was not paying them, and whoever cut the tree that caused the injury should be the liable party. TBH taking a case against your own family is a low thing to do, would he do it had he been working in his brothers yard? Equally I don’t think the farmer should foot the cost either, because these two took on something they’d no idea about doing. Compo culture I agree 1000%

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

I said that already but, without being familiar with this class of insurance, I would be surprised if there was as this, on the face of it, looks exactly the kind of thing you would take out liability insurance for in the first place.

Any exactly the type of thing an insurer would want to exclude under their liability policy to deter such a reckless activity. This wasn't fortuitous, this was likely to happen

gimli2112

but it's not excluded on the standard wording, if it was such a fundamental risk it would be
there's a difference between taking a risk and knowing something is going to happen
just to be clear you are correct to a certain extent in that Insurers could argue it was gross negligence and not simply negligence but (and I'm not a lawyer) I don't believe they would get this to stick
if the guy is injured he is entitled to be compensated, to what extent I don't know. there could very well be contributory negligence but the court is going to rule in favour of the injured individual 999 times out of 1000,especially if there's an insurance policy to pick up the tab,
which I believe there is

Danzy

What risk assessment did they take?

Do they still have it?

Why was the person not operating the chainsaw was so close to the tree that a branch falling off could land on him?

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

but it's not excluded on the standard wording, if it was such a fundamental risk it would be
there's a difference between taking a risk and knowing something is going to happen
just to be clear you are correct to a certain extent in that Insurers could argue it was gross negligence and not simply negligence but (and I'm not a lawyer) I don't believe they would get this to stick
if the guy is injured he is entitled to be compensated, to what extent I don't know. there could very well be contributory negligence but the court is going to rule in favour of the injured individual 999 times out of 1000,especially if there's an insurance policy to pick up the tab,
which I believe there is

The standard wording must be read in conjunction with the policy document.liability. The schedule is where specific restrictions apply

Just because a guy is injured does NOT entitle him to compensation, especially if he is a co-author of his own fate

The existace, or lack of, insurance does not impose liability.

gimli2112

exactly which we don't have, unless the Insurers specifically endorsed the cover out, which I don't believe they would as no-one would buy their policy the standard policy would cover it

this is true but the insured described an accident not someone purposefully jumping out of a tree

again correct but my point all along is there is an insurable event here, if the injured party brings his brother, who presumably could not afford the cost the insured party will foot the bill, not that it will get to court anyway as the Insurer will settle well before then

mojesius

Sorry to hijack the thread but I have a similar question. We are due to move into a new home and the previous owner told us that neighbours asked if they could cut down a tree on our land that's blocking their view. It's not a particularly nice tree so we are happy to oblige once we speak with them.

However, it's sounds like we could be liable if anything goes wrong - any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks

gimli2112

don't hire the two lads in this story

get a fully licenced insured contractor to do it

tell your Insurers beforehand and see if they have any comment

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

exactly which we don't have, unless the Insurers specifically endorsed the cover out, which I don't believe they would as no-one would buy their policy the standard policy would cover it

this is true but the insured described an accident not someone purposefully jumping out of a tree

again correct but my point all along is there is an insurable event here, if the injured party brings his brother, who presumably could not afford the cost the insured party will foot the bill, not that it will get to court anyway as the Insurer will settle well before then

You have alraedy confirmed that you are unfamiliar with this class of insurance and you're not a lawyer. Ill leave you there

gimli2112

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You have alraedy confirmed that you are unfamiliar with this class of insurance and you're not a lawyer. Ill leave you there

as much as it pains me to say it insurance is my kung fu and it is strong

Skerries

any update on what happened to the car you sold that was clocked?

Eggs For Dinner

gimli2112 wrote: »

as much as it pains me to say it insurance is my kung fu and it is strong

But you're as qualified to talk on liability insurance as the two uncles are to chop trees

gimli2112

nope I actually have an insurance qualification
I couldn't tell you anything about chopping down trees except be careful