Owner
Is called arc of god ( na your wahala dude!)

The guy should not bother about the car or who bears the cost of the damage. He should simply thank God for saving his life... period.

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

Depends on the terms of the insurance on the car, or the park business ,it is very important to read the terms and conditions of a contract before you endorse your signature.

If mohammed wont go to the mountain, the mountain would go to mohammed. Since the car refused to jam the tree, the tree decided to jam the car. Blame nature.

[size=38pt]CARS ARE PARKED AT OWNER'S RISK[/size]

oweniwe:
Maybe na juju money den use buy the car....

pure Nigerian

As long as the car owner has comprehensive coverage on his insurance policy then he's covered, he'll just be responsible for paying his deductible and the insurance company can pursue subrogation against the other insurance company or the mall owners. This would not be considered an act of God since there was no windstorm or other extenuating circumstances. It's imperative to take photos immediately and get a police report!

chibabe3:
The guy should not bother about the car or who bears the cost of the damage. He should simply thank God for saving his life... period.

''S'' is for ''spacebookers

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

Cars 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)

It was an accident, the car owner's insurer will bear the brunt.

Insurance company

Force majeure. Who bears the loss would be determined by the court of law based on how the parties present their cases. Justice here shall be prophesy of what the court would say. In the end, as the court pleases!

The tree

literarymathy:
It will be upon the insurance company of the car or the car owner if there's a case of lack of insurance. The car park has nothing to do with this tragedy because it wasn't intended. There's no "mens rea" to the act. The car park company can only bear responsibility on two grounds;
1. If they want to out of remorse or charity.
2. If the car park service is paid for and consequently insured and in that case the lack of safety measures falls on the company.

#my2cents

Mens rea in a tortious case

stephenponti:


In this case there is nothing like cars parked at owners risk, because you pay for the parking space, hence they are solely responsible to protect a car for the paid duration in the park.

You paid to park without insurance on your receipt.

Don't be deceived nobody will refund u in Nigeria.

aze:
Cars Parked At Owners Risk.

That disclaimer those not work in cases like this

adaweezy:

Mens rea in a tortious case

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.

a tree appears lively with rotten roots.they is something fishy about this story.I think it was high wind that fell the tree.so much lies on nairaland

adeekiti:
Ayee o, the tree owner and the tree be jailed

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

stephenponti:


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

THIS IS WHERE LEGAL FIREWORK STARTS. I WISH TO BE DIA TO SEE THE WISDOM OF THE JUGDE

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.

adaweezy:

Mens rea in a tortious case

I see no recklessness tho

stephenponti:


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

If the car owner has comprehensive insurance he has got nothing to worry about with the Mall, though the mall is liable for damages caused the car owner

/
The Insurance company will fix the car if the owner has comprehensive insurance. That's why you have insurance that covers the car. The owner of the parking lot is not liable.
/

Gbese re o *in Lil Kesh voice*

The Insurance company of the car.

Sell that tree, buy another car.

God forbid..

The mall administrators and the parking lot admin bears the cost. The car owner paid to park his car in a place guaranteed by the park admin to be safe. It is the duty of the park admin to check for anything that can cause damage to peoples cars once they were paid .

the tree itself must surely pay... or enter fire

literarymathy:
It will be upon the insurance company of the car or the car owner if there's a case of lack of insurance. The car park has nothing to do with this tragedy because it wasn't intended. There's no "mens rea" to the act. The car park company can only bear responsibility on two grounds;
1. If they want to out of remorse or charity.
2. If the car park service is paid for and consequently insured and in that case the lack of safety measures falls on the company.

#my2cents

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..

The car park administrator can be considered to be a bailee and the terms of the bailment includes a duty of care towards the chattel, that's the car. An additional factor is, the car park administrator was rewarded for keeping the car safe so his duty is stricter.