Third Party Liability

[toscottm]

Hi All,

Obviously worker injury is the significant intent of this forum, however I am also interested to hear of incidents involving injury or damage caused to others during the course of arboriculture work including incidental operations.

Dropping a branch onto a car while felling, causing an accident during traffic control efforts, temporary closing a neighbourhood store by knocking out the local power, spilling coffee on your accountant during an audit, the little old lady that slips on wet leaves or other risks of harm to others faced by arborists. Please share your stories!

Thanks for any input you can provide!

Scott

 

[LightningLoader]

I know you can get sued if someone runs into your truck. We're just the manufacturer, but we had a lawsuit a few years back where some girl was driving down the street with the sun in her eyes, and she ran into a truck that we had mounted a knuckleboom on (we mounted it in the early 80's).

If I'm remembering correctly she killed either her passenger or herself because when she ran into the parked truck her car went under the DOT bumper. Now, in the 80's underride rules were different, and the truck complied with them at the time we mounted the boom, but the owner of the truck hadn't brought the truck up to current standards.

Is it my fault that the company that owns and operates a truck doesn't keep it up to federal DOT standards? Somebody bought this thing 20 years ago, are we supposed to be responsible for finding whoever the current owner is and reminding them to update their crap? I DON'T THINK SO.

The moral of the story is to keep up with the federal regulations so when accidents happen they have one less thing to try and blame on us when they drag us all into court. (we need an evil lawyer smilie to end this tale with)

 

[jonseredbred]

did you win or lose the lawsuit?

 

[LightningLoader]

the defnedant winning a lawsuit...what an amusing idea...

There's no such thing as winning a lawsuit anymore if you're a defendant. People always feel bad for whoever had the accident, and figure our insurance will pay, so they figure we should just throw them a bone even if it wasn't our fault.

Well guess what, insurance companies are in the business of making money, and we do pay when the insurance pays. They jack up our rates more everytime we get sued, until they finally cancel us.

Last lawsuit we were in, we paid more than the people who were actually at fault because we didn't settle out right away. Say they figure this person's injuries were worth about $400,000, and the first two entities that are more liable settle out first, instead of trying to fight. If they pay $150,000, and $50,000 when they settle, guess who's stuck with the $200,000 tab? The ones who wanted to stay in and fight longer because they weren't guilty.

 

[B-Edwards]

Says alot about our society. It's hard to idiot proof everything when the idiots outnumber the people trying to look out for them, it cant be done. But i guess they will make us pay for it anyway.

 

[Canyon Angler]

Hey, if Winchester can be sued by some lamebrain big-city mayor because Joe Crap the Ragman used a Beretta pistol that somebody stole and then sold to him on the black market to shoot a competing crack dealer -- and the judge didn't laugh at the lawsuit -- then anything is possible.

As someone else said, you don't even have to lose when a frivolous lawsuit is filed against you...you can go bankrupt just from the legal fees of defending yourself.

Don't get me started.

 

[toscottm]

Legal Beefs

Gentlemen,

Very quickly we are getting 'off track'! As requested, please provide some examples or stories for which you are familiar regarding lawsuits that have come about involving arborists causing injury to third parties (not employees).

We all have beefs about the legal system, however it would be very helpful if we could limit responses to the topic presented in the original question.

Thanks!

Scott

 

[Husky137]

Please do excuse us.

 

[LightningLoader]

I'd rather use this thread to complain about lawyers

 

[Canyon Angler]

Sounds to me like ol' Scott's lookin' for an ambulance to chase! :monkey:

Jes' kiddin' Scott.

 

[toscottm]

Sounds to me like ol' Scott's lookin' for an ambulance to chase! :monkey:

Jes' kiddin' Scott.

Actually I am in the business of risk management and have served arborists since 1994, however a shift in focus the past few years took me away for a while and now I am working to return significant attention to the field of arboriculture.

My interest in third party incidents is due to the need in Canada for risk management in this respect. Our government worker's compensation programs provide excellent risk management services in the limited scope of employee issues, however a service for the benefit of an arborists risks to the general public is absent. This is the area I work. To help arborists reduce their risks (and subsequently insurance costs) through better understanding of the potential issues.

Hope that helps explain my interest and preference for genuine information. Lawyer bashing can be entertaining but it is not contributing. When risks are better managed, some child gets to grow up knowing a parent that wasn't killed in some sort of accident. Although none of us will ever know who we saved, we can take pride in knowing that the world is a safer and therefore better place!

All the best!

Scott

 

[LightningLoader]

The problem that we see the most is actually traffic accidents, backing up is especially dangerous. One thing that the power company does down here is make every single one of their vehicles put out cones everytime they stop. That way they have to walk behind the truck to pick up the cone before they leave, which gives them to opportunity to make sure that there aren't any people hanging around behind the vehicle.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

traffic accidents, backing up is especially dangerous. .

I once worked for a delivery company. For every stop where backing would be required, either to get in or to leave, we were required to back IN, and exit going forward. The company had LOTS of numbers to show that drivers are more often in a hurry when LEAVING, so they are more likely to be careless. Since backing is inherently dangerous, they didn't want to combine both danger factors.

By enforcing that policy, they got a significant reduction in accidents. I don't remember the numbers, but the reduction was strong enough that even the union had to back off of complaining about it.

Of course, the best practice (when you have the option) is to pull in and pull out without any backing. I know - you can't always do that.