Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Wind blown debris and damage liability
901 views
Skip to first unread message
terry.sh...@gmail.com
Jan 12, 2017, 2:51:07 PM1/12/17
to
Hello all.
Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
Certainly, in a recent case of an apparently healthy tree having blown over and damaged my neighbour's house and mine, where that tree had been growing on Council-owned land, the Council did not pay to put right the damage. The Council could not reasonably have anticipated that the tree would fall and so it was just a case of bad luck for the house owners (home insurance covered it).
Cheers. Terry.
Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
Certainly, in a recent case of an apparently healthy tree having blown over and damaged my neighbour's house and mine, where that tree had been growing on Council-owned land, the Council did not pay to put right the damage. The Council could not reasonably have anticipated that the tree would fall and so it was just a case of bad luck for the house owners (home insurance covered it).
Cheers. Terry.
The Todal
Jan 12, 2017, 4:12:59 PM1/12/17
to
On 12/01/2017 17:04, terry.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
Yes, that's right.
> Hello all.
>
> Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
Any evidence that your roof was already in poor repair and had a
tendency to shed tiles, would support a claim.
But as you know, ordinarily such claims will be handled by your building
insurers and you won't need to worry about finding the money for damages
or costs.
Mark Goodge
Jan 14, 2017, 5:35:33 PM1/14/17
to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:20:31 -0500, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:12:42 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2017 17:04, terry.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
>>
>> Yes, that's right.
>
>He becomes liable whenever there are reasonable measures he COULD have taken
>or just when there are reasonable measures that he SHOULD have taken?
He becomes liable when he fails to take measures that a reasonable
person WOULD have taken.
Mark
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:12:42 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2017 17:04, terry.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> Am i correct in thinking that if exceptionally high winds cause roof tiles to be unseated from my house and to fall on another person's property (e.g. a car parked in the street), then I am not liable for the damage to said property unless there was some reasonable preventive measure that I could have taken, but didn't (i.e. to be liable, I would have to have been negligent)?
>>
>> Yes, that's right.
>
>or just when there are reasonable measures that he SHOULD have taken?
He becomes liable when he fails to take measures that a reasonable
person WOULD have taken.
Mark
Sara Merriman
Jan 15, 2017, 5:54:09 AM1/15/17
to
In article <9snk7cd1kb52cee6o...@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
Just before the 1987 storms a neighbour asked a local tree surgeon to
have a look at a tree in her front garden, he checked it and said it
was fine, no need to take it down.
On the night of the storm it fell over, cutting the tree surgeon's car
in half.
have a look at a tree in her front garden, he checked it and said it
was fine, no need to take it down.
On the night of the storm it fell over, cutting the tree surgeon's car
in half.
rosielee
Jan 22, 2017, 4:06:29 PM1/22/17
to
The house next to mine has been empty since the owner died 2 years ago and there are no relatives. What happens if that roof starts shedding tiles or the tv aerial onto my car? Do the council have an obligation to make it safe?
The Todal
Jan 22, 2017, 5:56:08 PM1/22/17
to
On 22/01/2017 20:35, rosielee wrote:
> The house next to mine has been empty since the owner died 2 years ago and there are no relatives. What happens if that roof starts shedding tiles or the tv aerial onto my car? Do the council have an obligation to make it safe?
>
If a building becomes unsafe the council has the power to carry out
> The house next to mine has been empty since the owner died 2 years ago and there are no relatives. What happens if that roof starts shedding tiles or the tv aerial onto my car? Do the council have an obligation to make it safe?
>
works and charge them to the owner.
But that doesn't mean that the council will be liable for every tile
that falls. In fact they probably wouldn't be liable unless the building
was plainly dangerous and a long time passed with no action on the part
of the council.
Mark Goodge
Jan 23, 2017, 3:56:28 AM1/23/17
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:35:42 -0800 (PST), rosielee <234...@gmx.co.uk>
wrote:
No, the current owner has an obligation to make it safe.
If the owner doesn't, the council can do the work and then send the
current owner the bill. But the council is not liable for failing to
do so unless and until it has received complaints about the state of
the building, has had the building assessed as dangerous, has
attempted and failed to get the owner to do the work, and has not
acted within a reasonable time once it became clear that the owner had
no intention of doing it.
Alternatively, the council could be liable if, following an assessment
of the building, it failed to instruct the owner to make it safe.
The difficulty may be in identifying the current owner. If the
previous owner died with no known close relatives, then it may be an
"heir hunter" scenario where the new owner has yet to be tracked down.
If the property is mortgaged, then eventually it will be repossessed
by the lender, and the lender will become the owner. But mortgage
lenders are often reluctant to repossess in cases like this, as it
makes them responsible for the property as well as creating a
liability to the deceased's heir if and when they are eventually
tracked down. So they will often hold off reposssession proceedings
for some considerable time, particularly if there is an active search
for the heir under way.
Mark
wrote:
If the owner doesn't, the council can do the work and then send the
current owner the bill. But the council is not liable for failing to
do so unless and until it has received complaints about the state of
the building, has had the building assessed as dangerous, has
attempted and failed to get the owner to do the work, and has not
acted within a reasonable time once it became clear that the owner had
no intention of doing it.
Alternatively, the council could be liable if, following an assessment
of the building, it failed to instruct the owner to make it safe.
The difficulty may be in identifying the current owner. If the
previous owner died with no known close relatives, then it may be an
"heir hunter" scenario where the new owner has yet to be tracked down.
If the property is mortgaged, then eventually it will be repossessed
by the lender, and the lender will become the owner. But mortgage
lenders are often reluctant to repossess in cases like this, as it
makes them responsible for the property as well as creating a
liability to the deceased's heir if and when they are eventually
tracked down. So they will often hold off reposssession proceedings
for some considerable time, particularly if there is an active search
for the heir under way.
Mark
0 new messages