论坛首页 - Powered by Discuz! Board

标题: [求助信息] Help: Is this the right reason to refuse my claim? [打印本页]

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-20 14:25 标题: Help: Is this the right reason to refuse my claim?

There was a big tree sit beside my driveway. It was on Saanich public area in front of my neighbour's property. The tree caused my driveway serious damage so I called Saanich to cut the tree. Right now, the tree was cut by Saanich park department. However, they refused my claim for the damage of my driveway. The reason of refusion my claim was:

"With regard to your claim for damage, we have confirmed that the District of Saanich didn't plant these trees and so cannot be said to have caused the nuisance in this instance. As such the Municipality woould not be considered legally liable for the resulting damage to your driveway and drains, and your claim against the District of Saanich is therefore denied."

I can't understand their reason for refusion of claim and have questions below.

1. If District of Saanich didn't plant these trees, why did they cut these trees at their cost?

2. These trees were on Saanich public area in front of my neighbour's property. My neighbour didn't plant these trees either. So who will be responsible for the damage of my driveway?

3. Are there any other legal resources I can pursue to get some reasonable compensation?

If anyone can give me some suggestions, your help will be much appreciated.

Thank you so much

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-20 17:06

引用:

原帖由 Rockfish 于 2012-2-20 14:25 发表
1. If District of Saanich didn't plant these trees, why did they cut these trees at their cost?

While as it was already on their land, no one else could touch it without permission from Saanich; and if it cause any harm when it break or fall (due to its health, not by storm (as healthy tree falls due to storm is "an act by God" and no one would be resposible)), Saanich would be responsible. So it is cheaper to remove it now than risking damage claim later, for Saanich.

引用:

2. These trees were on Saanich public area in front of my neighbour's property. My neighbour didn't plant these trees either. So who will be responsible for the damage of my driveway?

The person who planted it would be resposible, but you have to find him/her, and prove it. If that was easy, I am sure that Saanich will do the same and charge the person the removal fee as well. But if the tree came by itself, then, that was an act by "God" (i.e. the nature), there is nothing you or anyone else can do.

引用:

3. Are there any other legal resources I can pursue to get some reasonable compensation?

Fat chance.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-20 21:32

引用:

原帖由 freedom_2008 于 2012-2-20 17:06 发表

While as it was already on their land, no one else could touch it without permission from Saanich; and if it cause any harm when it break or fall (due to its health, not by storm (as healthy tree ...

Thanks for your time to answer my questions. I still have questions here.

1. In your explaination , Saanich wouldn't be responsible for removing the stump of the trees since the stump wouldn't break or fall down, right? However, they are planing to remove the stump in the near future, how would you explain for this?

2. The trees are about 3 stories high and I believe they were planted more than 100 years ago. So who know who planted these trees. In other words, I am the most unlucky person as my property was damaged and nobody would be responsible for these damage.

3. What do you mean "Fat chance" for your answer to questions 3 above?

Thank you!

作者: linhuadance 时间: 2012-2-20 22:12

引用:

原帖由 Rockfish 于 2012-2-20 21:32 发表
...3. What do you mean "Fat chance" for your answer to questions 3 above?...

I have always marveled at the beauty or the craziness (whatever way you prefer to see it) of the English language.
"Fat chance" means "slim chance". Fat or slim, they both mean "little chance" or "no chance".

(Clever use of the language, freedom_2008!)

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-20 22:36

引用:

原帖由 Rockfish 于 2012-2-20 21:32 发表
Thanks for your time to answer my questions. I still have questions here.
1. In your explaination , Saanich wouldn't be responsible for removing the stump of the trees since the stump wouldn't break or fall down, right? However, they are planing to remove the stump in the near future, how would you explain for this?

While, someone might trip over the stump and fall (just kidding

) 。 Did you ask them to remove the stump? If you never did, they might do it., but most likely wouldn't do it at all.

引用:

2. The trees are about 3 stories high and I believe they were planted more than 100 years ago. So who know who planted these trees. In other world, I am the most unluck person as my property was damaged and nobody would be responsible for these damage.

How old are yours and your neighbors' houses? If your street and neighborhood are less than 100 years old, than the tree was likely a product of the nature, not by human. If that is the case, although I am sorry for your loss, but it is us, the human, who took their (forest) land, put houses and roads and driveways over their roots, and took them down, as we have been doing in the past 150 years in great Victoria area

. So the real true victim is the tree, IMHO.

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-20 22:46 标题: 回复 4# 的帖子

Thanks., 林老师（不过中文更难，各有自千秋）。 I first learned the phrase from Humphrey Bogart story; when someone told him that while he was away, they found an actress with the same style just like him, he replied: Fat chance. Of course he was wrong, that actress was Lauren Bacall, who became his last wife later. Nice couple.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 09:42

引用:

原帖由 freedom_2008 于 2012-2-20 17:06 发表

While as it was already on their land, no one else could touch it without permission from Saanich; and if it cause any harm when it break or fall (due to its health, not by storm (as healthy tree ...

I still couldn't understand this. Even though these trees break or fall, Saanich still can say they didn't plant these trees so it is not their responsibilities for any damage. right? Many thanks for your time.

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-21 09:50

引用:

原帖由 Rockfish 于 2012-2-21 09:42 发表

I still couldn't understand this. Even though these trees break or fall, Saanich still can say they didn't plant these trees so it is not their responsibilities for any damage. right? Many thanks ...

You are welcome. I would think that it is not their responsibility before they were notified (as they didn't know). But after they were notified, they would be responsible for what would happen afterward.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 10:27 标题: 回复 8# 的帖子

Thans again. However, the reason seems limpingly. Here is a similar example, if someone drove and hit a passenger by accident, he didn't notice that so he kept driving. Then police caught him. Can he say "I didn't know I hit a passenger so it was not my responsibilities for this accident, and I would be responsible from now on"?

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-21 10:37

Of course he is responsible, but in this case, it would be charged as "careless driving causing death and failed to stop at the scene", rather than murder or manslaughter, if the accident was caused by the driver. If the accident was not driver's fault, then it would be a real accident, the driver would be just "failed to stop at the scene". But it is very different from the tree case, though.

If you really want to find out, maybe you could check with UVic Law dept. They seems to have some free legal aid run by students there. Or if you are very concerned, the best way would be to get a lawyer.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 10:44 标题: 回复 10# 的帖子

Thank you so much for your time and suggestions. I will do my best to find out the best results.

作者: asdfgh 时间: 2012-2-21 13:14

with my limited knowledge of law, I would think that a tree on a piece of land is part of the land.
When Sannich got this land, it got everything on it, in it and underneath it. Sannich should be responsible for the nuisance the tree caused.

And they say they have confirmed that they didn't plant the tree, if it is confirmed, they must know who plant the tree, you can probably ask for proof of the confirmation.

Good luck!

I think VIRCS has free legal aid too, check on that.

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-21 13:34

The Municipality of Saanich was incorporated on March 1, 1906, and they probably didn't start plant any trees some years after that. So you can try to count the rings on the tree stump, to see how old it is. If it is older, of course they didn't plant it, and good luck to find someone who is over 100 years old

BTW, Sannich money is from all of us living in Saanich, via our property tax and other taxes and fees. I live in saanich, I am okay to pay for the city roads, but without a solid good reason, why should I pay for some else driveway? If Saanich pays for all the requests, our property tax may have to increase another 10% or more to cover all the cost.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 15:05

引用:

原帖由 freedom_2008 于 2012-2-21 13:34 发表
The Municipality of Saanich was incorporated on March 1, 1906, and they probably didn't start plant any trees some years after that. So you can try to count the rings on the tree stump, to see how ol ...

1) All the houses in the neighbour are around 30-40 years old. Counting the rings on the tree stumps is USELESS. If the counting of the rings on the tree stump is more than 100, then Saanich said it was planted before Saanich founded. If the counting of the rings on the tree stump is less then 100, then Saannich would say they didn't plant it either. They don't want to show you the report even if it was them to plant the trees.

2) These trees on Saanich property cuased the damage of my driveway. Isn't this a solid reason to claim for my loss? You can't say you live in Saanich area so Saanich wouldn't pay for my loss...

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 15:31 标题: 回复 12# 的帖子

I agreed with your point and thanks for your help.
All the houses in my neighbour are around 30-40 years old. However, these tree are more than 3 stories heigh so they were planted before all of these houses built for sure. I believe neither my neighbours nor I planted these trees. There is NO reason for Saanich that they just cut these trees and remove the stumps of the tree on their land WITHOUT pay the damage to my driveway by their trees.

作者: freedom_2008 时间: 2012-2-21 17:20 标题: 回复 14# 的帖子

Sounds like the tree was already there when your house was built, regardless if the tree was planted or just grew by itself (as many of the tree here). Then why don't you try to find out who designed and built the house, and find out why they put the driveway over the tree's root system? If the tree was already there, the builder should have avoided its roots when they built the house. So it is more a builder's problem than the city. Also when you bought your house, the house inspector should have told you the issue then and you should have checked with the city then to decide to buy it or not.

"I" as myself is nobody, but "I" as any Sannich resident, probably would feel the same about not over spending tax payers' money. If you can find a valid legal reason to blame Sannich, not the builder, for a tree that was 50 years older than your driveway, then we will pay; otherwise, we don't. It is that simple.

作者: linhuadance 时间: 2012-2-21 17:57

In matters like this, fairness, morality and logic are often (if not always) irrelevant. It is how it is said in the books--in the laws, by-laws and regulations, that matters. There is no use getting emotional or feeling indignant. If it really matters to you, getting legal advice from qualified personnel or services--as is suggested by freedom_2008, would be the first useful step to take. Good luck.

By the way, why are we all using English here?

作者: asdfgh 时间: 2012-2-21 19:24

Does your property insurance cover your drive way?

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 20:03 标题: 回复 17# 的帖子

Sorry for that I type Chinese a bit slow so it is easier for me to type in English.

作者: Rockfish 时间: 2012-2-21 20:05 标题: 回复 18# 的帖子

I will ask my insurance company to see if they cover the damage of my driveway. Thx

欢迎光临论坛首页 (http://mail.victoriabbs.com/bbs/)