Basketball hoop falls on neighbors car

[brendi210]

Out of nowhere a gush of wind came and knocked it over denting the car. I'm I at fault here? I'm in California

 

[brendi210]

Basketball hoop

I forgot to mention basketball hoop is on sidewalk in front of my house and neighbors car was parked there. Out of nowhere a gush of wind came and knocked over hoop denting neighbors car

 

[xylene]

Of course you are 100% liable.

Your property damaged the property of another.

 

[FlyingRon]

It's not so much that it is his property but it is that he was negligent in allowing his property to stand in a condition where it could damage others property.

A tree (not dead or diseased) would be his property but if that blew over, it would be an act of God and he would not be liable.

 

[LdiJ]

It's not so much that it is his property but it is that he was negligent in allowing his property to stand in a condition where it could damage others property.

A tree (not dead or diseased) would be his property but if that blew over, it would be an act of God and he would not be liable.

I think it would depend more on how the hoop was installed. If a tornado or hurricane picks up your picnic table, for example, and sends it crashing into the neighbors house that is still an act of god. If the basketball hoop was a seriously installed in the ground (cemented in) it would probably be an act of god. If its one of those ones that has a base that is weighted by sand, then I tend to agree that the OP is probably liable.

 

[justalayman]

I think it would depend more on how the hoop was installed. If a tornado or hurricane picks up your picnic table, for example, and sends it crashing into the neighbors house that is still an act of god. If the basketball hoop was a seriously installed in the ground (cemented in) it would probably be an act of god. If its one of those ones that has a base that is weighted by sand, then I tend to agree that the OP is probably liable.

Sort of


The fact it was a "gush of wind" and not a tornado, it is the op's liability since it was either in such poor condition or poorly installed such that it could not withstand normal weather occurances. Even in situations involving tornadoes and such, when personal property is thrown around and causing damage to others or their property the claim of it being an act of God is not a blanket defense. Allowing situations analogous to allowing a dead tree to stand would preclude such a defense. Improper installation, storage, or a general failure to account for a probable condition could also stymie any such defense.

In general a person is required to maintain their property in a safe condition. If some property would normally withstand a common condition and the property was allowed to remain after it degraded such that it could no longer withstand common occurances, the owner can become liable for the damage caused by it. As well, if a persons installation does not withstand common issues, again, the owner can be held liable for resulting damages

There are situations where lawn furniture is blown into neighboring yards and cause damage where the owner of the furniture can be held liable. If winds capable of doing that are somewhat common, the owners failure to secure their furniture to prevent it from being blown into the neighboring yard causes them to become liable for the damage caused. The wind is obviously an act of God but the failure to secure the furniture where the exposure is a common occurance is negligence.

 

[LdiJ]

Sort of


The fact it was a "gush of wind" and not a tornado, it is the op's liability since it was either in such poor condition or poorly installed such that it could not withstand normal weather occurances. Even in situations involving tornadoes and such, when personal property is thrown around and causing damage to others or their property the claim of it being an act of God is not a blanket defense. Allowing situations analogous to allowing a dead tree to stand would preclude such a defense. Improper installation, storage, or a general failure to account for a probable condition could also stymie any such defense.

In general a person is required to maintain their property in a safe condition. If some property would normally withstand a common condition and the property was allowed to remain after it degraded such that it could no longer withstand common occurances, the owner can become liable for the damage caused by it. As well, if a persons installation does not withstand common issues, again, the owner can be held liable for resulting damages

There are situations where lawn furniture is blown into neighboring yards and cause damage where the owner of the furniture can be held liable. If winds capable of doing that are somewhat common, the owners failure to secure their furniture to prevent it from being blown into the neighboring yard causes them to become liable for the damage caused. The wind is obviously an act of God but the failure to secure the furniture where the exposure is a common occurance is negligence.

Something similar happened in my neighborhood once. We are in the Midwest so a tornado is always a possibility but one time we had storms bad enough that everyone's patio furniture, bbq grills and garbage cans etc ended up all over the neighborhood without a tornado happening and there were damages. That is not common without a tornado. In fact, its the first time I had ever seen it happen.

Nobody's insurance company tried to hold anyone liable for damage...they all considered it an act of god.

Now, I agree that if someone has a basketball hoop where the base wasn't weighted properly, or wasn't cemented in deeply enough then absolutely an errant gust of wind shouldn't knock it over and the person would be liable.

 

[I'mTheFather]

It sounds like the hoop was moveable and not installed, since it was "on the sidewalk". Completely OP's liability.

 

[justalayman]

Winds strong enough to do that are not typical nor common in your area so the act of God defense is reasonable where you live. If you live where winds that strong are normal you could be held liable for the damages. There is no hard line when attempting to determine when a person must take greater action to ensure their furniture won't blow around. The courts make that determination should it not be settled between the parties. One has to take the specific facts of any given situation into consideration. An act of God is used when referring to a situstion that a reasonable person (as in the legal reasonable man standard) would not see as a likelihood of happening.

 

[tranquility]

It sounds like the hoop was moveable and not installed, since it was "on the sidewalk". Completely OP's liability.

I disagree. A portable hoop is not a strict liability object like dangerous animals, explosives or water above the ground and things like that. The only measure is negligence. I agree with LdiJ, the measure will be if the OP is negligent. There, the facts matter. What is the duty of an owner of a portable hoop? Since strict liability is used in only a few exceptionally hazardous situations, in an ordinary situation the OP is not responsible of all who play upon, touch, use, park near, park far or otherwise are harmed from an "actual cause" (Legal jargon, look it up.). The OP is not an insurer. Along with the duty is co-issue of proximate cause and the real thing that "act of God" gets to. If Manson escapes from prison tonight, kills someone who had to flip the switch, where the switch kept the oxygen flowing, and the lack of the flowing oxygen caused a failure of the switch, and the failure of the switch caused the dam to release all the water, And the water flowed down to the guy who could not go to work easily, because the guy could not go to work easily he decided not to, by not being at work the other guy could not get a sandwich for lunch in the morning, because he could not get a sandwich in the morning he went to the fast food place for lunch, where he was shot because of a transsexual wanted to pee at the urinal and who got angry because the OP expressed dissatisfaction in some way and that person was a security guard that would have stopped Manson from tipping over the portable hoop onto a potential plaintiff's car?

Probably not liable.

That is where "act of God" comes in. At what point do we cut the liability? If the OP filled up the water to the fill line as expressed in the instructions, is he responsible if damages result? Does he have indemnification from those that told him the amount of water? If they do indemnify, what if the company goes out of business with no bond? Is the OP responsible? What if a reasonable person in like circumstances followed the directions that he could reasonably rely upon and that was not enough to cause damage because of the wind?

That is where the real answer lies, what is reasonable?

If he did not breach the duty, he cannot be sued in negligence. Until we find a duty other than he insures anything Manson does, I'm not sure there is liability absent more facts. (Like the predictability of the wind on a Summer's day.)

 

[xylene]

Manson?

Y'all are overthinking this.

Many places it isn't legal to leave a temporary basketball hoop up on the sidewalk.

 

[LdiJ]

Manson?

Y'all are overthinking this.

Many places it isn't legal to leave a temporary basketball hoop up on the sidewalk.

You are under thinking it, because you have no idea if this is one of those places, and you have no idea if this was a temporary hoop or a permanent one. OP hasn't said.

 

[brendi210]

Basketball hoop

we do not leave basketball up permanent... Kids played with it and left it up...it was filled with water...also my neighbor the friendliest guy I know...he is demanding cash now...

 

[brendi210]

Basketball hOop

not the friendliest and was parked wrong way also

 

[xylene]

Then why you debate your need to pay?