Default Liability for Lawn Damage?

[aw6196]

What is the name of your state? NJ

We hired a contractor to remove a tree. We specifically asked that he do no damage. He said as long as he did it 'now' while ground was frozen (last winter this happened), there would be no damage. We said ok.

Enormous damage was done.

In front of two witnesses, they said they would come back and repair (they 'seemed' to be sincere). So we (mistake) gave them a check .

Almost a year later, we took them to small claims. We went to the room where they try to resolve the issue before going to the judge. We were shocked -- they were bullies, full of insults, and accusational the whole time, and they were saying they NEVER said they would come back and fix damage, and that they TOLD ME there would be damage, and I said that I didn't care?!? Are all contractors professional liars (these two seemed good at it).

So, we went to the judge, and asked if we could rechedule so we could bring our witnesses. The judge graciously agreed. We will be going back with witnesses.

No written contract was made. I did not sign ANYTHING saying I would allow the damage (nor did they sign anything that said they would not). I presumed they would keep their word (mistake).

My question. Assuming the judge cannot detemine who is telling the truth, what is the DEFAULT liability for such damage? In other words, are WE liable for damages they cause, or are THEY liable, or, are we both equally liable?

BTW, we stopped payment on check the next day because we felt something suspicious going on. Even though the damage will cost more to repair than the original fee, we would have just left it alone, but they got police to believe we intentionally 'stole' their money, and they have filed criminal charges (theft of service), so we felt we had to do this to get a dispute on record. Its amazing what you can do with lies. I suppose they are extra angry because they are not paid, and I presume they are used to being paid, and having people go after them, but not worrying since they have the money. What a mess!

Thanks -

 

[divgradcurl]

My question. Assuming the judge cannot detemine who is telling the truth, what is the DEFAULT liability for such damage? In other words, are WE liable for damages they cause, or are THEY liable, or, are we both equally liable?

It will probably depend on whether or not the damage was "reasonable" or not based on the specific facts of your situation. If the contractor acted negligently, then they will probably be reponsible -- but if the damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tree removal, you will likely be responsible (unless you can somehow prove they took full responsibility for any damage). Or, it may be somewhere in between. It will depend on who can prove what.

BTW, we stopped payment on check the next day because we felt something suspicious going on. Even though the damage will cost more to repair than the original fee, we would have just left it alone, but they got police to believe we intentionally 'stole' their money, and they have filed criminal charges (theft of service), so we felt we had to do this to get a dispute on record. Its amazing what you can do with lies. I suppose they are extra angry because they are not paid, and I presume they are used to being paid, and having people go after them, but not worrying since they have the money. What a mess!

Stopping payment was not the right thing to do in this case. Small claims court is.

 

[aw6196]

> Stopping payment was not the right thing to do in this case. Small claims court is.

If I hadn't done that, even when we win in snall claims court, I fear that we would never see our money -- this was the only way to make sure we had money to fix the damage.

Is putting a stop payment illegal or criminal (as they are trying to claim)? They actually told poolice we wrote a 'bad' check (NSF). We proved otherwise (to police) but the complaint has still been accepted, and we have to go to (criminal) court to defend ourselves. We view it as a bullying tactic -- is there more to it?