I have 2 city owned tree that needed attention. I called a tree trimmer to pay myself but when they came out they indicated they could not work on the city tree. I called the city and they verified that no contractor but one they hire can work on the trees. 2 years later the city finally trimmed them…so depending…
Original Bob, how does that work? If he was in a mandatory evacuation area, would that pretty much close the book on that lawsuit? Or is there wiggle room to argue around it? (As usual, I feel it is necessary to note that I am genuinely asking and these are not sarcastic questions meant to make the commenter above look inferior. I know how this crowd rolls, so I need to be explicit.)
There’s ALWAYS wriggle room, N. He could argue he was not notified of a mandatory evacuation. But since he was laying on the couch when this happened and not huddled in a doorway or basement, I’m thinking there wasn’t a mandatory evacuation. But I could be wrong about that.
I assume that if he was in an evacuation area, it goes from the city’s (possible) responsibility to it falling on the responsibility of the person as an assumption of risk.
Basically that translates to, “you shouldn’t have been there in the first place”
If a landlord can be held liable for a tenant’s injuries when mugged on the street, then the city can be held liable for whatever damage is caused when their tree falls over. They could do everything right and still wind up paying for this one.
Send a note to the IRS and tell them you are perfectly willing to contribute to windfall damages for people suing your city, county or state, cuz that’s basically what your saying.
I’m sure they are plenty of valid & otherwise reasonable claims, but there x10000 that aren’t. Undue burden on taxpayers is the reason for these laws.
So……..who planted the tree near the house, the city or the homeowner (original or existing)? Good luck with that one!
Phone rings: NY City Attorny’s office, God Speaking may I help you with this claim?
They may have a case since it had been reported to the city that the tree was unsafe. Just saying…
It’s not nice to sue Mother Nature…
I have 2 city owned tree that needed attention. I called a tree trimmer to pay myself but when they came out they indicated they could not work on the city tree. I called the city and they verified that no contractor but one they hire can work on the trees. 2 years later the city finally trimmed them…so depending…
Another question that should be considered. Was the man in a house located in the area where evacuation was mandatory or highly recommended?
Original Bob, how does that work? If he was in a mandatory evacuation area, would that pretty much close the book on that lawsuit? Or is there wiggle room to argue around it? (As usual, I feel it is necessary to note that I am genuinely asking and these are not sarcastic questions meant to make the commenter above look inferior. I know how this crowd rolls, so I need to be explicit.)
Well, ya know, we do like a good fight.
Probably because nothing else is going on for any of us…lol :)
Exactly! Fridays are the worst. Very slow here.
I meant in our personal lives. :)
There’s ALWAYS wriggle room, N. He could argue he was not notified of a mandatory evacuation. But since he was laying on the couch when this happened and not huddled in a doorway or basement, I’m thinking there wasn’t a mandatory evacuation. But I could be wrong about that.
I assume that if he was in an evacuation area, it goes from the city’s (possible) responsibility to it falling on the responsibility of the person as an assumption of risk.
Basically that translates to, “you shouldn’t have been there in the first place”
Good luck with this. Not a chance this lawsuit goes anywhere. Sovereign immunity to precedent to acts of God are all on NYC’s side.
If a landlord can be held liable for a tenant’s injuries when mugged on the street, then the city can be held liable for whatever damage is caused when their tree falls over. They could do everything right and still wind up paying for this one.
Send a note to the IRS and tell them you are perfectly willing to contribute to windfall damages for people suing your city, county or state, cuz that’s basically what your saying.
I’m sure they are plenty of valid & otherwise reasonable claims, but there x10000 that aren’t. Undue burden on taxpayers is the reason for these laws.