Property damage- Sue again?

[falegalnewbie]

NC.

Neighbour has a dead tree. 2 years ago, the tree limb fell and damaged my property. I discussing with him, but ended up suing for damages. I am an immigrant, new to this country. I went unprepared for court and lost. The neighbor has done nothing about the tree. It is dangerously leaning and I am sure it will damage my home soon. If I try bringing it to his attention, he simply refuses to do anything and says I cannot sue him again even if my house gets crushed.. If the tree damages my house, can I suing him again? Yes, its same tree, same parties but different damage. Pls advice. I am very worried.

Thanks,
NL

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The reason you lost is you have a duty to trim the portions of tree overhanging your property, without killing it. If it ready to fall over, take good video, with a newspaper showing the date. Advise him you have video of the condition so if it falls you have evidence for court. You can also hire an arborist to opinion its condition to strengthen your case.

 

[TheGeekess]

NC.

Neighbour has a dead tree. 2 years ago, the tree limb fell and damaged my property. I discussing with him, but ended up suing for damages. I am an immigrant, new to this country. I went unprepared for court and lost. The neighbor has done nothing about the tree. It is dangerously leaning and I am sure it will damage my home soon. If I try bringing it to his attention, he simply refuses to do anything and says I cannot sue him again even if my house gets crushed.. If the tree damages my house, can I suing him again? Yes, its same tree, same parties but different damage. Pls advice. I am very worried.

Thanks,
NL

Duplicate thread.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/re-litigation-600463.html

 

[tranquility]

Each new incident causing damage is one that can be litigated. The tree does not have immunity. I also disagree the OP has a duty to trim. While he has the right (without damaging the tree), that is very different from a duty. Mitigation duties are to limit damage already occurred.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Why don't we tree this argument with case law.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16448569807349016781&q=tree+trimming&hl=en&as_sdt=4,34

 

[tranquility]

Why don't we tree this argument with case law.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16448569807349016781&q=tree+trimming&hl=en&as_sdt=4,34

Um...Okay. The holding of the case:

In the instant case where the defendants knew that the tree on their property was decayed and liable to fall and to damage the property of Edward and Josephine, we think and hold that the defendants were under a duty to eliminate the danger and could not with impunity place such burden to remove the tree on Edward and Josephine. However, the evidence would permit a finding that the predecessor in title, Charles Hedrick, had procured permission from the defendant to cut and remove this tree; he was supposed to have so cut and removed it before building the house in question; the tree was still standing in August 1964 when Edward and Josephine purchased the house; Edward and Josephine realized the danger and contacted the defendant eight to twelve months prior to 22 April 1967; and they received permission from the defendant to cut and remove the tree. The evidence of the defendants is susceptible to the interpretation that by their conduct, Edward and Josephine led the defendants to believe that the tree had been cut and removed and the dangerous condition eliminated. Therefore, it was not error to submit the contributory negligence issue to the jury. The instructions of the trial judge to the jury were adequate, and we find no error in the charge. Under the evidence of the case, the determination of the facts was for the jury, and the jury found those facts contrary to the contentions of the three plaintiffs.

I don't think that case stands for the proposition the person who has the right to cut the tree has the duty to do so.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

If you read earlier in the case Tranq, the court also said failure to trim branches you know will fall on your property is not compensable, so the courts opinions were consistent with what I said. Trim any branches that might fall on your property and notify the tree owner it is dead, that is documented and you will sue if it falls and causes damage.

 

[falegalnewbie]

If you read earlier in the case Tranq, the court also said failure to trim branches you know will fall on your property is not compensable, so the courts opinions were consistent with what I said. Trim any branches that might fall on your property and notify the tree owner it is dead, that is documented and you will sue if it falls and causes damage.

beats me. This is the classic Rowe V McGee. Thr Rowes were the plaintiffs whose house got damaged by a tree located on property of McGees, who are defendants. The trail court and Supreme court both opined that McGees had a duty to cut down the tree when they knew it posed a danger. However, Rowes did not get the compensation as Rowe had asked "permission" to take down the tree. The McGees argued that they thought Rowe took care of the issue. The court agreed.

btw, the defendants in the qoute were McGees and what you say is inconsistent with court's opinion.

 

[tranquility]

If you read earlier in the case Tranq, the court also said failure to trim branches you know will fall on your property is not compensable, so the courts opinions were consistent with what I said. Trim any branches that might fall on your property and notify the tree owner it is dead, that is documented and you will sue if it falls and causes damage.

No. That is not the holding of the court. That was a statement from the restatement of torts. The holding is the one I quoted. The portion you were reading is part of the discussion leading to the holding.