Comment by SkyPuncher
3 days ago
Yes, but there is generally not a requirement to inspect trees. Even a tree being dead is not sufficient to prove negligence. Dead trees don’t fall over immediately.
3 days ago
Yes, but there is generally not a requirement to inspect trees. Even a tree being dead is not sufficient to prove negligence. Dead trees don’t fall over immediately.
Liability for property damage also doesn’t require strict negligence in most cases either.
See my comments above regarding some other factors that make it unlikely they could actually get damages (or it would be worthwhile even trying) in this case.
But it doesn’t remove the technical liability, most likely.
The most common claims that do actually get paid out is for things like public parks, street trees, etc.
Someone gets hit by a falling branch at a public park, or their car gets totaled by a falling tree, they tend to get sue happy.