On another message board I frequent there was a discussion about how the poster’s “bitchy” neighbor wanted him to pay for damage a falling limb from a healthy tree on his property did to her house. He said it wasn’t his responsibility and by law, I’m guessing he is right. My question is, why is this so? Why wouldn’t someone’s property (the tree) damaging someone else’s property the fault of the tree’s owner? Is it due to practical reasons, in that no one would own a large tree due to a huge increase in insurance rates? And yes, I know the neighbor has the legal right to remove any part of the tree that is on her property.
Our tree hit the neighbor’s house last year, and he was uninsured.
The insurance agent told us that as long as I had not damaged the tree to make it fall, it was your basic Act of God.
I received insurance money to remove the part in our yard, and gave the neighbor what I didn’t pay the tree people.
If a tornado picked up your car and slammed it into your neighbor’s house, would that feel like your responsibility because it was your property?
This is basically the same thing. It isn’t anyone’s responsibility, it’s just a thing that happens. And so the person it happens to is the person who has to deal with it.
If the limb fell on her house, then likely the limb was across her property line. I think you’re allowed to cut the limbs at your property line as if the line goes into the sky. So if she was concerned about that limb falling, I think she could have cut it.
Filmore nailed it. You are entitled to and responsible for any branches overhanging the fence into your property. The onus is placed on you because: it’s your home and property at risk, how could your neighbour see the extent?, should your neighbour be empowered to enter your property to trim the branch? Clearly no!
Does the neighbor have the right to trim any branches that crosses her/his property line?
Yes, but AFAIK only to the extent that it doesn’t kill the tree.
If your deductible is so low that you were able to have tree people come out just to drag a log off, and make a claim, AND have enough left over to give your neighbor something… Well you must be paying FAR too much in premiums. That or your tree people are charging way too much.
What’s your deductible, $100??? Next time you get bored, have your agent run the numbers on a $1k or $10k deductible. And then do the math.
$10,000? Good Lord, how much money do you make? That is a third of my take home income.
:dubious:
If my neighbor planted a pine tree a few feet from the property line, let it grow for 20 years, and then a strong wind came along a blew it over onto my roof causing major damage, I’m responsible. But I’m guessing if my neighbor built a tower as tall as the tree, and wind knocked it onto my roof, he would be responsible for the damage? Or is that on me again?
I’m guessing that in that case, nate, the distinction is that your neighbor *built *the tower, and is therefore the agent that’s responsible for its very existence. Trees, being part of nature, count under Acts of God, because God is responsible for the tree’s existence. I could be wrong, but I think that’s how insurance companies draw the line between Acts of God and something that can be blamed on a liable party.
I didn’t expect to get all philosophical and metaphysical in an insurance and property rights discussion. 
Assuming the tower was legal, met all building codes, etc… unless you could prove some sort of negligence on their part - it’s still on you. No different if a storm rips off part of your house and blows it into the neighbor’s house. Or picks up a picnic table and puts it through their window.
That’s what an “act of god” is. It’s nobody’s fault. Shit happens. That’s what insurance is for. For you to be liable, there would have to be a “reasonable” way for you to have prevented the accident. And simply something like, if it wasn’t there in the first place…, isn’t a reasonable expectation. As in, it’s not reasonable to expect someone to anchor a picnic table to the ground in order to prevent a storm from blowing it around.
Perhaps if it was something like a kids toy - like a little kids ride on toy of some kind. And you have a garage or shed where stuff like that could be stored. Perhaps a reasonable person would secure such loose, smaller items in a garage in anticipation of a coming storm. Maybe. But can it be reasonably expected to always know when a storm is coming with enough warning to be able to secure all items? Maybe if it were a hurricane warning a day in advance with evacuation warnings, maybe…
Another way of looking at this is that any other way assigning blame/responsibility opens up an even bigger can of worms than the current system.
It may not be perfect, but any other system is way worse.
An irreverent but very descriptive thought.
(Regarding homeowners insurance deductible)
It matters not what I make. All that matters is that I have that much in an interest bearing account waiting for the day a twister hits, or one of my indoor fires gets out of control. Anyone could have a high deductible equivalent placed in savings too, if they didn’t spend so much on insurance premiums. I don’t mean that to be snarky. Seriously have your agent run the numbers and figure out how much you could save / sock away. Once you go several years without an Act of God you will have saved enough to make it worthwhile and from then on it’s “free” annual savings for life.
Now of course if you’re the type to run crying to your insurance company every time a snail runs across your freshly poured concrete sidewalk, or a leaf falls in your gutter, this may not be the best plan for you. Having a high deductible is a good cure for the whines too.
Getting to that interest bearing account is the hard part for me.
When your tree encroaches onto a neighbors property, they can cut off the branches that extend onto their property. They aren’t supposed to kill the tree, but if that much of the tree is encroaching onto their property, they may have an arguable case for killing it.
If the tree falls down and damages their property, it is an “act of God” and you are not liable for it.
Unless … your negligence in any way contributed to causing the tree to fall – then you ARE liable. So can you prove that you kept the tree healthy? Do you have receipts for the times you had a professional arborist come out and check the tree out? Proof of treatment to keep worms & pests from weakening the tree? Etc. That’s why insurance companies often compromise on a partial settlement in such cases.
And so should you, given that you will probably live next to these neighbors for years. Much cheaper to spend a little bit of money & apologies on keeping cordial relationships.
The adjustment guy just asked me, “Can they prove you did anything to make it fall?”
Wealthy people talk of assets and net worth.
Middle/working class talk of cash flow.
Hypothetical:
Instead of a healthy, normal limb falling, it is part of a your tree which was VERY visibly (as in: split in two by lightning) and obviously weakened to the point of imminent failure. A year earlier.
NOW are you liable? I would guess “reasonable man” theory would dictate that you should have seen and mitigated the danger to others.