stephenponti:


If the mall insinuet "it's an act of God" as someone said before what next?

lonelydora:
I think the owner bears the cost because it is always written "car parked at owners risk"

stephenponti:
A car was properly parked as directed by security men at a mall (paid parking)
A tree which appeared lively but with rotten root collapsed and fell on the car creating enormous damage.

My question now is who is likely going to bear the loss,

1. The insurance company of the car,
2. The owner of the car park,
3. The insurance company of the parking lot. (if the business is insured or,
4. The car owner

What's your legal opinion on this. I had a hard time trying to figure out the fate of the car pictured below. (happened today)

Ringtail:
no just sack them and appoint new ones, beacause this is the time of sack and appoint.

lonelydora:


If it's a paid parking, then the people should bear the cost. Get a good lawyer and you are good to go.

MadCow1:


Mens rea and actus rae are not important in this matter and only holds for murder cases..

A car park that collects money for people to park in it had a case to answer. In as much as there was no specific agreement as to what the money paid covers, the owner can argue that he felt they offered full protection for his car..

Now note, the contract or agreement of services provided by the car park can range between or a combination of the following:

1. Rent.. This covers just hosting the vehicle for a set period. Meaning though the vehicle is on their property, they still are not liable for its safety.

2. SAFETY.. This normally covers protection from theft, vandalism and tamper.

Or both.

Now if it is found that the tree was diseased and should have been cut down long before now, then the park operators are responsible.

The car park has a responsibility to provide a safe parking zone for its client.

Act of God situation does not apply here except it can be proven that a hurricane blew the tree down or that a typhoon passed the area and destroyed the tree..

Unless that tree was from someone else's property, the Business owner is responsible. It's not different to a case of if the tank stand inside the compound falls on a car..

mulante:
The administrators of the car park.

The risk here could have been anticipated, it would have been a different scenario if a plane engine dropped from the sky and destroyed the car. A car park is not a garden where trees should be left to grow. It could cause damage to the cars by either fallen branches or as it happened above. They could also contribute nuisance through bird droppings and by shedding leaves.

Again, they charge a fee so that you can be assured of the safety and security of your car. The enjoyment of that fee comes with certain consequences, of which this is one.

abatically:
Act of God. The car owner bears the cost.

abbsal:
That's a natural disaster....d insurance company dat insured d car will responsible ...

linearity:


Not so fast, since the root is rotten, if that be proven as such and the car owner knew about it but failed to take care f it, then it is negligence on his/her part and as such will be liabled.

matrixme:
The car owner probably didn't pray well before he left home that morning. This is a metaphysical scenario. How do you explain this to the insurance company?
#DeliverUsFromEvil

abatically:


Insurance don't cover natural disaster.

literarymathy:


The usage of the term is solely to evince a sense of thought or premeditation. I know the term is more homelier in Criminal Law.

Totino:
Actually, the 'parking' company owner re to bear the cost because 1, by collecting money from a customer (car owner) they've agreed to secure d car from REASONABLE FORSEEABLE DAMAGE(S) and theft.
On d other hand, if d case is taken to court, d parking company can claim an ACT OF GOD because no reasonable person would av foreseen d falling of d tree thereby making both party liable for d damage.
Finally, it depend on aw reasonable the lawyer is and aw gud wit words.

stephenponti:
A car was properly parked as directed by security men at a mall (paid parking)
A tree which appeared lively but with rotten root collapsed and fell on the car creating enormous damage.

My question now is who is likely going to bear the loss,

1. The insurance company of the car,
2. The owner of the car park,
3. The insurance company of the parking lot. (if the business is insured or,
4. The car owner

What's your legal opinion on this. I had a hard time trying to figure out the fate of the car pictured below. (happened today)

Kay17:


Probably the blind reasonable person would not 'see' the possibility of a tree in a car park damaging a car. There is always the likelihood of parts of a tree and the tree itself damaging a car. So it is foreseeable.

mulante:
The administrators of the car park.

The risk here could have been anticipated, it would have been a different scenario if a plane engine dropped from the sky and destroyed the car. A car park is not a garden where trees should be left to grow. It could cause damage to the cars by either fallen branches or as it happened above. They could also contribute nuisance through bird droppings and by shedding leaves.

Again, they charge a fee so that you can be assured of the safety and security of your car. The enjoyment of that fee comes with certain consequences, of which this is one.