Woman impaled by tree branch sues medical center

I agree. Your points are valid and recognized as long as the injury is due to negligance. Problem is the preception of personal accountibility has shifted, leaving a door open to seek damages through court actions.

This has a negitave effect. Expecially in this situation. Where do you think the lawywers (both injured and defendant) will head next. Probably to the tree service servicing this client. Trickle down effect is at our insurance premiums.

Is this inline with the nursery rhyme "rock a by baby". Long story short. Tree limbs break, be careful.
 
At the workshops I've attended on the subject, it's generally accepted that the arborist is likely not a pocket worth mining, although a plaintiff who smells blood in the water may lean on the arborist to roll over and give evidence against their client.

I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. When was the last pruning cycle for the trees? Have the owners had a tree inventory done, or had the trees assessed for risk? Were sidewalks replaced near the trees in the recent past, or was any kind utility trenching performed that may have compromised roots?
 
[ QUOTE ]
At the workshops I've attended on the subject, it's generally accepted that the arborist is likely not a pocket worth mining.

[/ QUOTE ]O i dunno; it depends on the pocket...and it does not take a pick and shovel to mine that pocket; just ~$50 for plaintiff to name one more defendant. roll over? sounds like a drug bust, or Jack McCoy dealing on Law & Order. but yes arborist info if subpoenaed can be used against owner.

Shear winds can qualify as acts of god/Getoutofjailfreecards, where thunderstorms may not. NOAA can be the owner's friend. So many factors. If the owner had trees inspected and work done, that's usually favorable. If not, not.

If the arborist gave a routine recommendation of removal, that is not necessarily a getoutofjailfreecard.
 
Seems that if a person is injured while driving a car, or exiting or entering a car, their auto policy should cover them.

So I'm curious where they might fit into this too.
 
I don't doubt that the victim's auto insurance would cover her injuries to the extent of her coverage limits.. and then they'd subrogate a claim against the tree owners themselves. They may well be underwriting the victim's suit themselves.
 
The story is still a reminder for us to be defensive with boulevard trees.

Look for co-doms that have included bark.
Look for limbs/leaders that are 50% (or greater than) the trunk or parent stem.
Consider species.
Consider prevailing winds.
Volume of traffic.
Etc...
 
[ QUOTE ]
As soon as we adopt looser pays all expenses with no appeals the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this was meant for "frivolous" lawsuits. I'm all for looser pays when someone uses the court system as a weapon.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Thought I'd throw in a little Latin for emphasis
grin.gif
 
It's cases like this that start people worrying about there trees and the potential danger that could exist no matter how small. Next thing you know all the trees on the property are coming down just to cover their themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom