Liability

[DougA]

I've got two 60' poplars that are 30' from the high voltage power line that comes onto my property. My problem and cost, not hydro's. I've been thinking about how to deal with them for the past few months. If we get a bad ice storm in the winter, combined with a strong wind storm from the west, there's a good chance one or both will knock over the line and take out the power to another 30+ homes. OR - they could be just fine and live longer than me.
If I hire someone, they will charge me well over $1K and the odds of them failing are the same as if I do it myself. Such are the dilemmas in life.

 

[BrotherBart]

Had a big oak like that that died. 30 feet from the power line and transformer pole. Called the electric company and the right of way supervisor came out and told me it was my responsibility. Told him I would drop it myself and to look in his records for the day I dropped one on the lines and took out the whole neighborhood on a weekend on a 90 degree day. Two days later the guys with the bucket truck showed up and took it down.

The Poplar that has worried me for 20 years is in front of the house and will surely split the house in half. 110 feet high. 80 feet from the house.

 

[DougA]

I'll try your advice but I have no record of wiping out the neighborhood, just being the biggest PIA in it.

 

[jeffesonm]

Call me old fashioned, or naive, but given what you describe I'd take the job. Sounds to me like the risk is on his side of you suing him in case you get hurt, and if you're not going to do that, then take the guy's money and do the work for him.

 

[BrotherBart]

Funny when that one hit another tree and turned 90 degrees and landed on the line. The guy came out and I met him down at the road and said "Some dumbass homeowner dropped a tree on the line.". He laughed and said "Did you break the line?". I hadn't, it was resting on top of the line. When he went up in the bucket to clear it off the line his saw wouldn't start. I picked up my saw and held it out to him and said "I know one saw that can cut that tree.". He came back down and got it and cleared the the line. When he came back down I told him that I knew the right of way supervisor and the CEO of the utility and it would make both of their days to send me the bill. He said "All I saw was a tree that fell on the line".

I asked him what color he wanted his new pickup to be.

 

[warbonnet]

Please provide some sort of evidence on this. I did a little research and it seems the effectiveness of a liability waiver can vary depending on the state.

Ask any lawyer worth his salt, liability waivers are useless. I have had an occasion or two where liability was a concern, My lawyer was the one that explained waivers to me. If your comfortable going into a situation with just a waiver where liability could possibly come in to play go for it. As for myself I work to hard for what I have to foolishly loose it. Shame thats where we are as a society these days but thats the way it is.

 

[TreePointer]

Please provide some sort of evidence on this. I did a little research and it seems the effectiveness of a liability waiver can vary depending on the state.

There has been plenty written about this. Search terms: LIABILITY WAIVER USELESS

As I mentioned before, the waiver can help, but a good lawyer can poke holes in one. In addition, although they're not supposed to do it, it's not unheard of for juries to side with the injured party out pity for pain & suffering or other unjust rationalizations ("defendant can afford to pay", "the evil rich insurance company will pay it", et al.).

Even if you win, you still have to spend money on a lawyer in addition to increased aggravation and time lost.

 

[jeffesonm]

I'm finding few fact based sources explaining why waivers are useless. I see lots and lots of people repeating "people say waivers are useless" but that's just like "you can't burn pine.

I do see examples of courts overlooking waivers in cases of negligence... like suppose you were cutting trees on someone's property and they were driving a tractor piss drunk and ran you over, after twice being convicted for DUI. Then their waiver might be no good.

But if your saw slips out of your hand and your cut your leg open, after signing a waiver acknowledging the inherent risk in your activity, I'm not seeing how that wouldn't stand.

 

[claydogg84]

I'm finding few fact based sources explaining why waivers are useless. I see lots and lots of people repeating "people say waivers are useless" but that's just like "you can't burn pine.

I do see examples of courts overlooking waivers in cases of negligence... like suppose you were cutting trees on someone's property and they were driving a tractor piss drunk and ran you over, after twice being convicted for DUI. Then their waiver might be no good.

But if your saw slips out of your hand and your cut your leg open, after signing a waiver acknowledging the inherent risk in your activity, I'm not seeing how that wouldn't stand.

Exactly. I've yet to see one source of a case involving an overruled liability release. I keep seeing people saying "My lawyer said so". I'm sure you're right - If there is a case involving a waiver of some sort and the landowner also commits gross negligence which results in someone being injured, the waiver would probably be null.

 

[jb6l6gc]

Ever notice when u go skiing or to any concert or sports event there is a liability waiver written on the back of the tickets. I don't think they would put them there if there useless. It's all in how it's worded and the situation it pertains too. If you're that worried simple way to solve the problem. Go do whatever it is yourself and quit your bitching!

 

[jb6l6gc]

Everyone's trying to sue someone for something nowadays. My coffees to hot ..sue, I'm an idiot and hurt myself.. Sue. People are so damn soft these days.

 

[jeffesonm]

Everyone's trying to sue someone for something nowadays. My coffees to hot ..sue, I'm an idiot and hurt myself.. Sue. People are so damn soft these days.

If you read up on the facts of Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (here or (broken link removed to https://www.tortmuseum.org/cases-that-made-a-difference/liebeck-vs-mcdonald) or here) it's not as absurd as was portrayed in the media. McDonalds was serving coffee at 180-190 degrees, way hotter than most restaurants and home coffee makers, and hot enough to cause third degree burns in 3-7 seconds. Over the previous 10 years they received hundreds of reports of similar burns and settled many other such lawsuits, but did not change their policy. The lady tried several times to get McD's to pay for her medical bills but they refused. Ended up going to trial and the jury awarded 2.7M which was 2 days of their coffee sales, but reduced to 80% of that because they concluded she was 20% responsible herself. The judge further reduced the penalty and they eventually settled out of court. Now McD's serves coffee at 160 degrees, which gives you 20 seconds to mop up the spill before it causes 3rd degree burns.

Not disagreeing that our society is overly litigious, but many are misinformed about that particular case.

 

[TreePointer]

They are not useless in an absolute sense; however,don't get the wrong impression about them. If someone is determined to sue you, even if you are totally in the right, they will sue. When that point is reached, it's far from a certainty that all your bases are covered with such liability waivers or hold harmless agreements. A lot of these suits are looking for money from an out-of-court settlement, and greed trumps common sense and decency.

 

[jb6l6gc]

That's what I mean. Some uninvited idiot comes walking up my driveway which say maybe I haven't cleaned and is icy trips and falls, he will sue and my insurance will pay even though he had no business on my property in he first place. I don't like how the system works and I think people should assume responsibility for their own actions regardless. Don't get me wrong the system protects and helps those that need and deserve it but many others are just leeches and will do anything for money and not have to work for it.

 

[TreePointer]

A "loser pays" system would help a lot.

 

[DougA]

Ever notice when u go skiing or to any concert or sports event there is a liability waiver written on the back of the tickets.

Those are mostly to deter people from thinking that they can sue. If a good legal team can prove negligence to a jury, it will only be a small factor.

Getting back to the OP. it is highly unlikely that a suit would be successful however, as stated, it's the constant aggravation and cost of legal counsel that can be very hard to take. My brother got sued by a bank once because he was underwater on a mortgage and he handed them the keys and walked. They chased him for many years and made life absolute hell. They finally settled for peanuts but it was all those years of hell that was the real cost.

The easiest way to avoid a problem is to avoid the problem to start with. You can quote me on that.

 

[Willman]

Than pay a professional arborist then

I personally hire "professional" arborists to do my difficult take downs. As well as any trades person who expects to come on my job.
Proof of insurance is a requirement to get a check from me.

 

[Lumber-Jack]

Those are mostly to deter people from thinking that they can sue. If a good legal team can prove negligence to a jury, it will only be a small factor.

Negligence is the key word here. Waivers show that you assume the recognized risks, but they are superseded by any provable negligence of any parties involved.
In other words you sign a waver when you go to a ski hill that you assume the normal risks inherent with that activity. So if you fall down on the slope and break your arm because of your poor skiing skills they are not responsible, but if the operators of that ski hill neglected to tell you about an unmarked open pit they dug in the middle of the slope the day before, and you fell in it and hurt yourself they would "negligent", and you would likely be successful in suing them.
Without the wavier they could also legally be held responsible for your poor skiing skills, so they are not without merit and do carry some legal weight.