Fallen tree limb

[marathoner]

I live in central Ohio. A tree & limb are all on the neighbors property and my electric line crosses their property from the transformer. A limb from their tree fell in their yard which landed on the electric line that runs to my house. This caused my whole electric pan w/meter to be ripped away from my house. The utility company (AEP) reconnected my electricity bypassing the meter and said that it was my responsibility to contact an electrician to reattach the pan/meter and that this needs to be done within 10 days so they can reconnect my service thru the meter (otherwise they will disconnect my service). Who should pay for the electrician to reattach my pan/meter?

 

[ecmst12]

Well this has nothing to do with an auto accident, but report the claim to your homeowner's insurance and let them worry about whether your neighbors are responsible.

 

[JustAPal00]

In most states it depends on wether the tree is living or dead. A dead tree is the responsability of the owner of the tree. A living tree is the responsability of the person who's property is damaged. Was the tree alive or dead?

 

[HomeGuru]

Well this has nothing to do with an auto accident, but report the claim to your homeowner's insurance and let them worry about whether your neighbors are responsible.

**A: good advice.

 

[teflon_jones]

In most states it depends on wether the tree is living or dead. A dead tree is the responsability of the owner of the tree. A living tree is the responsability of the person who's property is damaged. Was the tree alive or dead?

Huh? Whether the tree was alive or dead has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You're responsible for paying for the damages. File a claim with your homeowner's insurance if you'd like to get some help, but be aware that it could result in higher premiums or they may drop your coverage entirely. Reconnecting the service shouldn't be more than about $1000 so if I were you, I'd simply pay it and avoid the higher premiums or the risk of losing your coverage. Insurance companies frown heavily on people who file small homeowner's claims.

 

[ecmst12]

The difference is a dead tree is a hazard, and if the owner of the tree knew it was dead, then it would be negligent of them not to remove the hazard before it damaged their or someone else's property. A live tree damaged by a storm or wind etc is an act of god and no one's fault.

 

[JustAPal00]

The difference is a dead tree is a hazard, and if the owner of the tree knew it was dead, then it would be negligent of them not to remove the hazard before it damaged their or someone else's property. A live tree damaged by a storm or wind etc is an act of god and no one's fault.

Hey Teflon did you read this? The reason I knew this was because of a hurricane that leveled six of my neighbors trees. They fell on 2 houses and a half a dozen fences. Everyones insurance had to pay for their own damage. If you don't know something, that's OK, but please at least research it before telling someone else their wrong!

 

[teflon_jones]

The difference is a dead tree is a hazard, and if the owner of the tree knew it was dead, then it would be negligent of them not to remove the hazard before it damaged their or someone else's property. A live tree damaged by a storm or wind etc is an act of god and no one's fault.

This is not true. It's not up to the land owner where the tree sits to know when it could break. It's considered an act of nature unless the person knocked the dead branch off themselves.

The only exception to this is if the land owner had been warned in writing by a local authority to have the tree taken down because it was a danger.

Whether the tree is alive or dead has absolutely no bearing in this case. A live tree could have done this just as easily, and often do fall during storms. All that matters is whether the land owner showed gross negligence in the tree branch striking the other party's property. I see absolutely no sign of negligence.

 

[teflon_jones]

Hey Teflon did you read this? The reason I knew this was because of a hurricane that leveled six of my neighbors trees. They fell on 2 houses and a half a dozen fences. Everyones insurance had to pay for their own damage. If you don't know something, that's OK, but please at least research it before telling someone else their wrong!

You've just proven my point. The owners of the houses had to pay for their own damages, not the owners of the trees.

I have researched this and have provided the correct answer. You have provided incorrect information. This is a site where people come for legal advice so please either give accurate legal advice or don't give advice at all. If you can quote a statute that applies to this case, please do so.

 

[fcobarr]

teflon - I think people come here for "Free Advice", right?

 

[JustAPal00]

You've just proven my point. The owners of the houses had to pay for their own damages, not the owners of the trees.

I have researched this and have provided the correct answer. You have provided incorrect information. This is a site where people come for legal advice so please either give accurate legal advice or don't give advice at all. If you can quote a statute that applies to this case, please do so.

No you sir are incorrect. If you have a dead tree on your property and it falls or a limb falls you are responsible. If it is a live tree, then the owner of the damaged property is responsible. Please quit giving out false information! All you need to do is Google it, there are all kinds of articles and links!

 

[teflon_jones]

No you sir are incorrect. If you have a dead tree on your property and it falls or a limb falls you are responsible. If it is a live tree, then the owner of the damaged property is responsible. Please quit giving out false information! All you need to do is Google it, there are all kinds of articles and links!

I don't need to Google it since I'm very familiar with the laws, but I would like to see links to some of the articles and information that you've used as the basis of your opinion.

For the record, the OP never said whether the entire tree was alive or dead, or whether the portion that fell was alive or dead, or made any mention at all of anything being alive or dead. Assuming it was dead is a big assumption to make. Live branches can and do fall all the time.

The key thing here, as I stated before, is negligence. There is absolutely nothing in the original post to indicate that the land owner where the tree stands is negligent in any way.

 

[teflon_jones]

teflon - I think people come here for "Free Advice", right?

Yes they do, not sure what your point is. Hopefully it's correct advice! Just because a person has an opinion doesn't mean they should post it. The forum purpose is:
"FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues."

So unless a person has faced similar legal issues or are a lawyer or are otherwise qualified to answer questions correctly, they should probably just read what other people have to say and learn the laws.

 

[JustAPal00]

I don't need to Google it since I'm very familiar with the laws, but I would like to see links to some of the articles and information that you've used as the basis of your opinion.

For the record, the OP never said whether the entire tree was alive or dead, or whether the portion that fell was alive or dead, or made any mention at all of anything being alive or dead. Assuming it was dead is a big assumption to make. Live branches can and do fall all the time.

The key thing here, as I stated before, is negligence. There is absolutely nothing in the original post to indicate that the land owner where the tree stands is negligent in any way.

You're right he didn't, that's why I asked. That is the crucial fact that determines if it is an act of god where the OP has to pay for the damages. Or negligence on the owner of the tree!

http://books.google.com/books?id=I8PDINuRnkkC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=dead+tree+homeowners+liability&source=web&ots=vRCqoXQiP7&sig=Lrx8FbkQekHqiKXhybki8YFSF5s#PPA78,M1

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/697629.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/296556_trees20.html

http://www.bellevilleandassociates.com/faq.cfm#home3

Take your pick! Now find me just one that says that the damage is the responsibility of the homeowner no matter what.

 

[JustAPal00]

Yes they do, not sure what your point is. Hopefully it's correct advice! Just because a person has an opinion doesn't mean they should post it. The forum purpose is:
"FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues."

So unless a person has faced similar legal issues or are a lawyer or are otherwise qualified to answer questions correctly, they should probably just read what other people have to say and learn the laws.

Your right again, and since the adjustor that came out to survey the damage said that since the trees had been healthy prior to the storm, everyone had to pay for their own damage. However if the trees had been dead then the property owner would have been liable due to his own negligence! Oh and because so many trees in the area had been blown over the state insurance commisioner had been quoted in the paper saying the same thing!