Thread: Who pays when a tree is blown over?

well i would asume you are liable for any damage caused by a tree that falls from your property.

however dose the "fruit that hands over the fence" principle apply here?

also if the councill told u you wernt allowed to remove the tree them they may be liable. a bloke up here got them to rebuild his shed.

I had a tree, a small blue gum, on my suburban block fall over in a storm. Guess where it landed... on my neighbor's roof. Insurance covered it..."Act of God"... This is in S.E. QLD

Glenn

From what I have read today [I think at lawlink] if the tree caused damage to my house or carport then my insurance would have covered it, and if the tree had damaged my neighbours house or belongings then his insurance would have covered this. The removal of the tree is not covered by insurance. The arborists have also been to this property previously and had not given me any indication that this tree was in danger of falling, so I dont think that I was negligent in not having it removed earlier.

if your tree fell over tere house then there insurance would cover it then try and get the money out of u.

Well if you grab all five trees and sell them to us you could in future cover the cost of any repairs

Originally Posted by weisyboy

well i would asume you are liable for any damage caused by a tree that falls from your property.

You're right. It happened to us once. A neighbour's tree fell over and fell onto the roof of our house causing quite some damage.

We did not claim on our insurance but instead forced the neighbour (a former neighbour from hell who got his just deserts ) to pay for all the costs of the repairs.

Nothing to do with you being negligent. Your tree caused the damage so you pay. Your neighbour might even sue you for the damage the removal of his trees is causing to his lifestyle and wellbeing as well as the cost of replacing the trees with advanced specimens, so pay up before he gets wise as to his rights.


Peter.

Nah. Don't agree with that last one.

We had an 80' tree from the neighbour's take out our garage in the '96 storm. It was covered by our insurance, not theirs.

Originally Posted by igatenby

Nah. Don't agree with that last one.

and

Originally Posted by JMB

knocking down 4 of their trees, but causing no other damage to their property.

and

Originally Posted by JMB

I dont get on very well with this neighbour

Why don't you agree, bearing in mind that there was no damage caused to his neighbour's buildings but only the trees which the neighbour's insurance (if he has any) would not cover.

Further even if the neighbour's insurance covers it he first has to be convinced to make a claim, nobody but the insured can do that and he may not want to do that as the poster doesn't get on well with him.

IMO you're dreaming if you think the neighbour may help if he doesn't get on with him.


Peter.

Originally Posted by igatenby

It was covered by our insurance, not theirs.

Maybe your insurer then went after them/their insurer to recover costs.

Sturdee you said -

Your neighbour might even sue you for the damage the removal of his trees is causing to his lifestyle and wellbeing as well as the cost of replacing the trees with advanced specimens, so pay up before he gets wise as to his rights.

but as I said in my first post I have already paid the arborists fee, and I am not seeking repayment from my neighbour. All that I am wanting at the moment is clarification as to who is legally responsible for the costs of tree removal in a situation such as this. Living in an area surrounded by many trees this is actually a matter of concern to my partner and I especially as we have quite a few large trees on our property as well as a few neighbours trees overhanging our house and land.

I am still seeking some legal clarification as to this situation, and although I have not yet spoken with anyone from my own council I found an article written by the Dept of Territory & Municipal Services, ACT G'ment that says -

Where damage to private property occurs as a result of a falling Government tree or a branch falling from a Government tree and the incident was not readily foreseeable, it is considered to be an accident or an "act of God". An "act of God" means an extraordinary occurence or a circumstance that could not have been readily foreseen and which could not have been guarded against. In these cases the ACT Government will not accept responsibility for the damage and the owner of the damaged property will be advised that they are responsible for the cost of repairs.

If this is the case in general in regards to falling trees then it seems that unless I had been negligent in the maintenance of the tree that blew over in the wind then it was actually the responsibility of my neighbour to remove the tree that had ended up on his property, which does not mean that I would not have still felt an obligation to pay the costs myself since it was my tree.

I had a tree fall over in a storm, took out about 9 metres of brush fencing. Householder insurance paid up - no arguments. Less the excess of course.
Cheers
Graeme

Only guessing, but if the winds were abnormally strong (storm) then you may not be at fault. If the tree just fell over then it is your fault (legally anyway). There is a chance you may only be responsible for the mess in your place, if you fail to take action against a forseeable event it is the opposite, you get the lot.

I know what a pain in the tail neighbour is like and sometimes I think its easier to just pay up and get on with it.