disgrunteld neighbors

[blackwaterguide]

Got up in a guys tree today and proceeded to take all limbs off on his side of fence. Got ready to start rigging the rest on the neighbors side. The stem of the tree is on my guys side. It's his tree.
He goes over to the neighbor (whom he had already discussed this removal with) and politely asks him to move his truck, a brand new truck. The neighbor tells him to go @#$% himself, and that we are not welcome on his property.
I've run into a few small problems before with jerks on the fence line. I wonder if my guy just leaves the tree, completely trimmed back on his side, and already full of carpenter ants and thosebig borer grubworms, is in any way responsible when the tree finally falls. The trunk is onour side, making it technically his tree, (my guys). There is a lot of top over-hanging the neighbor. I know laws vary some, state to state. Appreciate any information or experiences with right of way, or eminent domain issues.

 

[tinman44]

as far as i know when that tree falls your employer will be responsible or perhaps his home owners insurance will be, for any damages. so basically do what you can to get it down. maybe you can schedule it for when theres nothing under the tree, trash that falls as long as it doesn't do any damage i dont believe is his responsibility

 

[MasterBlaster]

DON'T use a digital camera, they don't hold up in court as well as a regular cam does.

 

[Newfie]

DON'T use a digital camera, they don't hold up in court as well as a regular cam does.

And are inadmissable as evidence in some jurisdictions.

 

[geofore]

Hazardous tree

Once reported as a hazardous tree to the neighbor, in writing, the neighbor with the new truck parked under it can not say he was not warned and asked to move the truck. The police report would go a long way in court if there were damage done to the truck the neighbor refused to move to avoid damages. He can not go before thr judge and claim he was not asked to move the truck to avoid damages or that he did not know the tree was bad and get away with that claim. Even the neighbor's ins. co. would back away from getting involved if there were damages if the ins. co. finds out the neighbor was informed of the hazard and refused to move the truck (risking a catastrophe). I have seen people park directly under trees on ROW to stop the crews from trimming, the police are called to talk to the owners to get the truck moved when other means (politely asking that it be moved) doesn't work. Removing a hazard is the goal, the fueding neighbors can continue the fueding after the tree is removed. The safety issue (removing the hazardous tree) takes over when the police come. Removing the tree has little or nothing to do with the fueding or how long the fueding will continue. It is a safety issue, not a point to fued over. I'm with Dan on this one, but make the point of the discusion a safety issue not the fueding issue.

 

[Ax-man]

DON'T use a digital camera, they don't hold up in court as well as a regular cam does.

_________________________________________________________________

WHY ?????????? I have not heard this before. The way I would look at it is, an image is an image no matter what type of camera is used. What is the difference?? Is it because a digital can be altered or touched up in photo shop and their is no proof or negative, as with a regular camera.

Larry

 

[treeman82]

I talked with a lawyer this past fall about a video tape. Apparently they are not admissable in court.

 

[Koa Man]

Wasn't a video tape of the Rodney King beating used in court?

 

[Newfie]

Different states have different rules.

Medical liability protocol in Massachusetts is reverting to the trusty old polaroid.

 

[MasterBlaster]

_________________________________________________________________

Is it because a digital can be altered or touched up in photo shop and their is no proof or negative, as with a regular camera.

Yes.

 

[glens]

Not that proofs or negatives can't be produced from digitally manipulated imagery...

 

[treeman82]

When I was talking with the lawyer, this was about a civil court issue, and a stupid one at that. This woman wanted to pay me to make a video tape of her property for her. According to the lawyer, the judge would have had to throw it out.