Tree limb fell on my car in landlord's yard

What is the name of your state? VIRGINIA

Hi all.

I rented a house from a landlord. My car was parked in the driveway. An old big tree limb fell on my car breaking the windshield and denting the fender. I took the landlord to small claims because he was negligent of the old tree. I said the landlord needed to keep up inspection of his premises meaning he needed to take care of his trees. That limb could've fell on my head and I would be dead! But....the judge said I couldn't win because it's "VA law". I said "what law?" he said "go look it up" so the judge had me try to defend my case just for him to tell me it is va law. he basically wasted my time. why did he have me try to prove my case if it is just....VA law? is this ethical or lawfully right?

i forgot to add my other question:

what is that darn VA law anyway? i tried looking it up on google but can't find it.

thanks all.

It's the law of negligence and you couldn't prove it. And as the tenant of the property, if you knew of the problem and did not notify the landlord, you lose again. That is what comprehensive insurance is for, this would be considered an act of nature and will be covered. If you don't have comprehensive, you pay out of pocket.

why did he have me try to prove my case if it is just....VA law? is this ethical or lawfully right for the judge to get me to spill all of my beans and then slap me in the face?

The judge didn't slap you in the face, he just gave you the facts. If you had done your homework (or visited a local attorney for a consultation) you would have found out you did not have a case and would have saved everyone a lot of time. The courts today are full of frivolous cases and some judges get a little cranky when folks such as yourself come into their courtroom unprepared. Chalk this up as a learning experience, it's nothing to get your panties all twisted up about.

Actually, you do have a case....just not for negligence on the landlord - as that can't be proven.

However, the landlord has homeowners insurance - as required by law. This insurance covers things like limbs falling on trees - only if the item damaged does not belong to the owner of the house. SInce you are not the owner of the house, the landlord's homeowners insurance will cover the damage.

nicolia said:

Actually, you do have a case....just not for negligence on the landlord - as that can't be proven.

However, the landlord has homeowners insurance - as required by law. This insurance covers things like limbs falling on trees - only if the item damaged does not belong to the owner of the house. SInce you are not the owner of the house, the landlord's homeowners insurance will cover the damage.

Click to expand...

Really? I'd be very interested in just how you come to this conclusion based on just the facts of this post.

Or do you have some divining ability to read the homeowner's policy, inspect the tree, know the weather condition just prior to the 'accident' or any other facts that are not in the post?

Plese enlighten us.

I agree that maybe his homeowner's insurance should have paid me for the car damages. But, the landlord did not tell me if he had homeowner's insurance or not, and I did not ask him. My husband asked him over the phone and the landlord said it was an act of nature and that he wouldn't pay a dime. He never really made it clear if he had insurance. If he did indeed have insurance, which most owners should, I highly doubt he would contact his insurance agency to compensate me b/c then maybe his premium would increase. I "dunno".

Also, if I was supposed to be compensated by the homeowner's insurance agency how come the judge did not state that? I guess the insurance has nothing to do with the courts. I guess it only deals with the victim (me) and the landlord.

I don't know if anything I said is true. It is just an inference or a hypothesis.

My biggest question now to everyone is ...What if that tree arm fell and hit me on the head causing me to die. Who would be at fault? Would that be enough proof to say that the trees were in bad shape and the landlord was negligent because he never came about the premises to inspect them?

No problem.

This is a page out of my own life. It happened to me exactly as described in the above post. (minus suing the landlord for negligence).

However, for some reason you assumed that "you do have a case" must mean that JCAIS automatically wins. Of course there are variables. Hell, even if you have a water tight case, the other guy can lie and you end up losing.

And I fail to see how weather conditions apply, as "acts of God" are still covered if the property belongs to another party.

Again, of course there are variables. However, it is the fool who says that JCAIS does NOT have a case.

You are right Nicolia

The landlord lied in court and that is how I lost.

I was so angry that he lied under oath. Here I am "Missy Innocent Do not lie under oath" and then along comes this guy who lies in front of the judge, when all he had to do was get his homeowner's insurance to pay for my fees. They were only like $200. You'd think a home owner would have at least that much money.

It saddens me to lose when I am right and he is wrong. I hate it but life goes on. I have learned that next time anything ever comes to this I will have a letter certified or something to that effect. I might even record a telephone conversation if I have to in the future.

Is it legal to record a telephone conversation and then present the tape in court?

I'm not sure if a taped phone conversation is legal in court - especially if the other participant is unaware they are being taped. Privacy laws seem to be changing every year....blame camera phones.

Question: for those of us who care, what lie did the landlord tell to get out of this case?

And I fail to see how weather conditions apply, as "acts of God" are still covered if the property belongs to another party.

Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong again.

EDITED: Oh, and by the way, Virginia is a one-party state which simply means that if you are a party to the conversation you may tape without the consent of the other party(s).

nicolia, the OP does not have a case, do not lead this person on. The landlord never lied, the OP had no clue what she was doing in court and had her shorts handed to her. If all it took was a simple insurance claim, why didn't she just file a claim with the insurance company instead of wasting her time suing the landlord? Of course the insurance company is going to turn down the claim. Did she think to ask the landlord who his insurance company is in court? Of course not, she didn't even think about till you mentioned it.

But of course a smart person would have filed a claim with their own auto insurance (which should have been the first thing done)and let them seek compensation if they felt someone else was liable. That is why we pay all that money for insurance. I am a landlord and my insurance would not cover such a claim. The point of the matter is who is liable for the damages? As I stated above, for the landlord to pay he would have to be negligent in his actions to be liable. He was not. For that reason the homeowners insurance would not cover the damage. The next question is, who took the risk of parking under a tree?

And to the OP, you just answered the last question above. You stated that you knew the trees were in "bad shape" and did nothing. Did you give the landlord written notice that the tree posed a potential hazard and should be looked at? If you had that would have been your proof of negligence. Did you think that maybe you shouldn't park under the tree that is in "bad shape"? This is called mitigating the damage. This is why the homeowners insurance is going to say no. You don't park your car in the middle of the street. Why? Someone will run into it and damage it. Same logic applies to parking under trees that are in "bad shape".

All the above would have applied if the tree branch hit and killed you. You took an assumed risk and lost. And because you waited to get real legal advice you lose again. And look into buying some life insurance, you never know when a rogue tree branch may fall your way.

“nicolia, the OP does not have a case, do not lead this person on. The landlord never lied”,

Yes the landlord did lie. You were not in court, so you do not know what happened in court. Point Simple.

“the OP had no clue what she was doing in court and had her shorts handed to her. If all it took was a simple insurance claim, why didn't she just file a claim with the insurance company instead of wasting her time suing the landlord?”
I already said my husband tried getting the landlord’s info. and the landlord would not give us any name of any insurance company. How does one go about contacting the landlords insurance co. when one does not know the name of the insurance co.?

“Of course the insurance company is going to turn down the claim. Did she think to ask the landlord who his insurance company is in court?”
We did not ask him in court because we asked him by phone. And do to him not giving us any info. on his insurance, we took him to court.

“ Of course not, she didn't even think about till you mentioned it. “
yes we had already thought about the homeowner’s insurance. As mentioned above, we already talked to the landlord about the insurance.

”But of course a smart person would have filed a claim with their own auto insurance (which should have been the first thing done)and let them seek compensation if they felt someone else was liable.”
#1 I am smart, #2I highly doubt my auto insurance would have anything to do with this case.

“That is why we pay all that money for insurance. I am a landlord and my insurance would not cover such a claim.”
I can see why you are so defensive….it is because you are a landlord yourself and you are just trying to stick up for all the other rotten landlords.

“The point of the matter is who is liable for the damages? As I stated above, for the landlord to pay he would have to be negligent in his actions to be liable.”
As stated, he lied in court. He said he was not negligible. I had more proof than can be covered on a simple forum, therefore I decided not to go into further details.

“He was not. For that reason the homeowners insurance would not cover the damage. The next question is, who took the risk of parking under a tree? “
the tree is one foot away from the driveway. It is large and hovers over the driveway. The driveway is made for people to park in front of the house. I had every right to park in a driveway at the house I was renting at the time.

”And to the OP, you just answered the last question above. You stated that you knew the trees were in "bad shape" and did nothing”.
I only knew they were in bad shape after the limb fell on my car. I did not know the tree was in bad shape beforehand. I was aware that he had one other rotten tree in the yard as well as the healthy tree I was parked under. I thought it was healthy but I was mistaken as proven by the limb falling on my car.

“ Did you give the landlord written notice that the tree posed a potential hazard and should be looked at?”
the landlord was aware of all his trees. He told me specifically not to park under the rotten tree which was 50 ft away. he came over a lot and picked up the branches that fell off of the “healthy tree”. The branches fell on the roof. He knew the tree was getting to be in bad shape like the rest of the trees. He should’ve cut it down. As for the tree that was truly unhealthy – he cut it down after the court case. I drove by and saw it chopped down. HA! Imagine how much money he had to spend getting that one chopped down. That tree could’ve produced even more damage, not only damage to the next tenant’s car, but to his house as well!

“ If you had that would have been your proof of negligence. Did you think that maybe you shouldn't park under the tree that is in "bad shape"? This is called mitigating the damage. This is why the homeowners insurance is going to say no. You don't park your car in the middle of the street. Why? Someone will run into it and damage it. Same logic applies to parking under trees that are in "bad shape". “
see last paragraph. I didn’t know the tree was in too bad a shape until the hugest limb of all limbs fell on my car. The landlord was aware of all those limbs falling. He came over quite often but decided to be a cheap B#stard and not thoroughly inspect the premises and take care of his property.

”All the above would have applied if the tree branch hit and killed you. You took an assumed risk and lost.”
So me dying due to a limb hitting me over the head is a risk.? I took a risk by paying rent on a heavily wooded property? So parking in the driveway that I am paying rent for is a risk?

“And because you waited to get real legal advice you lose again. And look into buying some life insurance, you never know when a rogue tree branch may fall your way.”
That is one thing I have learned – get legal advice before attempting to go to court. And no thank you, life insurance is too expensive for me right now. Not everyone can afford it. Landlord’s should not only care for their tenants safety, but take care of their property. Landlords should come by the premises on a timely basis to make sure everything is looking “ok.” As I stated before, I agree that the tenant should notify the landlord as well. That is one thing that is well understood. Every wonder why Wal-mart does not have huge, tall trees in their parking lots? I rest my CASE>

i admit there are some misspelled words in my last post, but this was due to being irritated