NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !
-
get off ur moral high horse and start looking at reality.
-
n i'm refering to u, jamie jawinski.
-
this is never a moral issue but about the duties of the state.
im surprised to know that our school kids were now taught to disregard human life -
uhh ok.
-
Just my 2 cents worth.....Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:this is never a moral issue but about the duties of the state.
im surprised to know that our school kids were now taught to disregard human life
If tree branch fall - Cut all trees
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - Fence up road
If old man choke on fishball - Ban fishball
If it rains when you are going out - Gods at fault
When the Hell is all this blaming going to end
If Npark had been told about the 'rotting' tree branch and did nothing about it, of course they are at fault. BUT IT WAS RAIN HEAVYILY ON THAT DAY........ so such Npark refer the problem now to God 
-
Originally posted by hloc:
n tat is y chewing gum are baned
Just my 2 cents worth.....
If tree branch fall - Cut all trees
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - Fence up road
If old man choke on fishball - Ban fishball
If it rains when you are going out - Gods at fault
[b]When the Hell is all this blaming going to end
If Npark had been told about the 'rotting' tree branch and did nothing about it, of course they are at fault. BUT IT WAS RAIN HEAVYILY ON THAT DAY........ so such Npark refer the problem now to God [/b]
-
Originally posted by hloc:
If tree branch fall - NParks to inspect trees more frequently and increase pruning
Just my 2 cents worth.....
If tree branch fall - Cut all trees
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - Fence up road
If old man choke on fishball - Ban fishball
If it rains when you are going out - Gods at fault
[b]When the Hell is all this blaming going to end
If Npark had been told about the 'rotting' tree branch and did nothing about it, of course they are at fault. BUT IT WAS RAIN HEAVYILY ON THAT DAY........ so such Npark refer the problem now to God [/b]
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - increase fine for jaywalking
If old man choke on fishball - educate the public
If it rains when you are going out - to improve weather forecast
i wonder what went wrong with our education system? -
It when wrong when the Citizen stop thinking for themselves and depends too much on the Govt to solve their problems for them.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:If tree branch fall - NParks to inspect trees more frequently and increase pruning
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - increase fine for jaywalking
If old man choke on fishball - educate the public
If it rains when you are going out - to improve weather forecast
i wonder what went wrong with our education system?
It when wrong when parent teaches their Children to look for others to blame for their own mistake, misfortune, or just plain badluck or acts of God.
It when wrong when all we could think about is that Govt is incharge of everything that has to do with out lifes....... -
I think some of those supporting the government just because they are the government are stupid. We have to looks at the facts of the case.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:If tree branch fall - NParks to inspect trees more frequently and increase pruning
If crossing roads without using traffic lights - increase fine for jaywalking
If old man choke on fishball - educate the public
If it rains when you are going out - to improve weather forecast
i wonder what went wrong with our education system?
Their logic is, government is always right and can't be wrong.
Let's say the situation is different.
Mr. Lee's has a bungalow, he has some old trees which are rotting. A large part of the branches protrude into another neighbour's bungalow (Mr. Tan).
During a storm, a large section of Mr. Lee's rotting tree fell on the roof of Mr. Tan's Bungalow, Mr. Tan's bungalow was damaged.
Does Mr. Tan have the right to sue Mr. Lee in order to recover the cost of the damages to his roof?
Or Mr. Tan is nice enough to say that it's an act of god, therefore he is not liable.
I am sad about the plight of these people who always say citizens are always wrong and government is forever right.
When cornered they will tell you to immigrate to another country or claim that the issue should not be blamed on the government.
I think people such as these are the result of our education system. -
Originally posted by hloc:
it really went wrong when the government you elected does not serve you
[b]It when wrong when the Citizen stop thinking for themselves and depends too much on the Govt to solve their problems for them.
It when wrong when parent teaches their Children to look for others to blame for their own mistake, misfortune, or just plain badluck or acts of God.
It when wrong when all we could think about is that Govt is incharge of everything that has to do with out lifes.......[/b]
what does civil servant really mean? -
Forgetting the part where the CAR is on public area instead of being own and grown by Mr Lee.......Originally posted by maurizio13:I think some of those supporting the government just because they are the government are stupid. We have to looks at the facts of the case.
Their logic is, government is always right and can't be wrong.
Let's say the situation is different.
Mr. Lee's has a bungalow, he has some old trees which are rotting. A large part of the branches protrude into another neighbour's bungalow (Mr. Tan).
During a storm, a large section of Mr. Lee's rotting tree fell on the roof of Mr. Tan's Bungalow, Mr. Tan's bungalow was damaged.
Does Mr. Tan have the right to sue Mr. Lee in order to recover the cost of the damages to his roof?
Or Mr. Tan is nice enough to say that it's an act of god, therefore he is not liable. -
Originally posted by hloc:
You mean to say, so long as it is a public area, there is no duty for the government or public to ensure it's safety?
Forgetting the part where the [b]CAR is on public area instead of being own and grown by Mr Lee....... [/b]
Think about the potted plants being placed outside the ledges of HDB flats not too long ago, aka killer litter.
Didn't the HDB imposed jail sentences and fines to prevent home owners from placing their potted plants on ledges? The area under HDB block is public area.
So I guess it's alright for me to place a wooden block spiked with nails on the expressway just because it's public area. Wait, with you kind of mentality maybe I should put things in perspective.
I will put a piece of wooden block spiked with nails perched on the branches of some trees on the expressway. Should it rain ever so heavily, the wooden block will fall, thereby causing either the wooden block spiked with nails to hit some motorcyclist on the face or land on the road and cause some major accident due to the car tyres blowing at high speed.
I am free from blame, because it was an act of god, I place the wooden block spiked with nails on the tree not expecting it to fall when it rains.
Whether public or private does not change the issues, the government has the obligation to provide for the safety of the public. -
Planting a booby trap that is set to go off during a rainstorm does not constitue an act of God.
I think the argument thus far is...
Was the damage a result of neglect by the Government, making them liable? or was it an act of God?
1. It's an act of God as it occured during a heavy storm so the Government is not liable.
2. It's neglect by the Government was a huge contributing factor thereby making them liable.
3. Citizens share any liability for failing to report the rotten trees.
4. The Government is soley responsible for the public trees and so are therefore also solely liable for anything arising from public trees. -
This is a clear cut case. I once witnessed a neighbour's tree roots damaging the concrete walls of their neighbour - claimable? Definitely. The basis stems from a tree growing in the defendant's house, while the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant's organic 'property'.Originally posted by maurizio13:I think some of those supporting the government just because they are the government are stupid. We have to looks at the facts of the case.
Their logic is, government is always right and can't be wrong.
Let's say the situation is different.
Mr. Lee's has a bungalow, he has some old trees which are rotting. A large part of the branches protrude into another neighbour's bungalow (Mr. Tan).
During a storm, a large section of Mr. Lee's rotting tree fell on the roof of Mr. Tan's Bungalow, Mr. Tan's bungalow was damaged.
Does Mr. Tan have the right to sue Mr. Lee in order to recover the cost of the damages to his roof?
Or Mr. Tan is nice enough to say that it's an act of god, therefore he is not liable.
I am sad about the plight of these people who always say citizens are always wrong and government is forever right.
When cornered they will tell you to immigrate to another country or claim that the issue should not be blamed on the government.
I think people such as these are the result of our education system. -
And isn't thats why the Govt is using the above sentence as the Reason why S'porean shouldn't Protest in the streets..... you know, 'ensuring' public safety.Originally posted by maurizio13:You mean to say, so long as it is a public area, there is no duty for the government or public to ensure it's safety?
Think about the potted plants being placed outside the ledges of HDB flats not too long ago, aka killer litter.
Didn't the HDB imposed jail sentences and fines to prevent home owners from placing their potted plants on ledges? The area under HDB block is public area.
So I guess it's alright for me to place a wooden block spiked with nails on the expressway just because it's public area. Wait, with you kind of mentality maybe I should put things in perspective.
I will put a piece of wooden block spiked with nails perched on the branches of some trees on the expressway. Should it rain ever so heavily, the wooden block will fall, thereby causing either the wooden block spiked with nails to hit some motorcyclist on the face or land on the road and cause some major accident due to the car tyres blowing at high speed.
I am free from blame, because it was an act of god, I place the wooden block spiked with nails on the tree not expecting it to fall when it rains.
Whether public or private does not change the issues, the government has the obligation to provide for the safety of the public.
Again..... if the Tree is rotting and the public had inform Npark... but Npark didn't take any action.... that would be the Npark's fault. But if a otherwise healthy tree were to break and fall due to a sudden storm or earthquake..... then whos fault is it
If a potted plant which is own and put on the ledges by you fall.... it your fault. But if a storm or earthquake where to hit S'pore, which cause the pot to fall.... u might not be at fault for it.
Npark is in-charge of Trees and garden in S'pore...... but they don't employ a 100K workforce to check on every tree in S'pore every other day. And till the day when the Govt could control the weather..... there is no way at all for anyone to tell when a storm will come that is strong enough to blow down a tree branch. -
Originally posted by phil30k:Planting a booby trap that is set to go off during a rainstorm does not constitue an act of God.
I think the argument thus far is...
Was the damage a result of neglect by the Government, making them liable? or was it an act of God?
1. It's an act of God as it occured during a heavy storm so the Government is not liable.
2. It's neglect by the Government was a huge contributing factor thereby making them liable.
3. Citizens share any liability for failing to report the rotten trees.
4. The Government is soley responsible for the public trees and so are therefore also solely liable for anything arising from public trees.
So I guess putting potted plants on the ledge of HDB flats is alright because it's not a booby trap. What if I hid a 1kg gold bar on top of a tree on the expressway? I have no intention to cause harm, just want to hide the gold from relatives or friends, but it falls during a storm hitting some motorcyclist on the face. Does it mean I don't have responsibility? If the wind wasn't blowing so hard, the gold bar won't fall hitting the motorcyclist on the face. Was it an act of god?
1. If it can be reasonably forsee that the occurence of the event will happen with a heavy storm, it won't free the government from liability.
Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
Brief Fact Summary
Plaintiff was running his car on borough street in a violent wind storm. As he passed under a tree, it was blown down crushing the roof of his car and causing him serious injury. Plaintiff was running his car in excess of the speed limit as permitted by a borough ordinance.
Rule of Law and Holding
Plaintiff's rate of speed did not cause or contribute to the harm that he suffered. His actions did not increase the foreseeable likelihood that a tree would fall on his car. It cannot be said that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Thus, Plaintiff's recovery is sustained.
Source: http://www.audiocasefiles.com/cases/detail/case/9059/
2. It's their responsibility to maintain the trees in proper condition.
3. Citizens do not have a liability to the general public.
4. -
This is just complete bullshit. You guys wonder why the government has so many laws. It's to save you from yourselves. Then, when something happens, you want the government to come in to save you.Originally posted by maurizio13:I think some of those supporting the government just because they are the government are stupid. We have to looks at the facts of the case.
Their logic is, government is always right and can't be wrong.
Let's say the situation is different.
Mr. Lee's has a bungalow, he has some old trees which are rotting. A large part of the branches protrude into another neighbour's bungalow (Mr. Tan).
During a storm, a large section of Mr. Lee's rotting tree fell on the roof of Mr. Tan's Bungalow, Mr. Tan's bungalow was damaged.
Does Mr. Tan have the right to sue Mr. Lee in order to recover the cost of the damages to his roof?
Or Mr. Tan is nice enough to say that it's an act of god, therefore he is not liable.
I am sad about the plight of these people who always say citizens are always wrong and government is forever right.
When cornered they will tell you to immigrate to another country or claim that the issue should not be blamed on the government.
I think people such as these are the result of our education system.
What you gonna ask for next? Lightning strikes you in an open field, and it's the government's fault for not developing there???
It's a TREE. It rained, a branch fell. Happens in the forest all the time. Seriously, some of you here are so used to blaming the government for every single thing that you have missed the big picture. -
"Ask not what your Country can do for you..... but what you can do for your Country." - John F. KennedyOriginally posted by Jamie Zawinski:it really went wrong when the government you elected does not serve you
what does civil servant really mean?
The Govt, as bad as it is..... IMHO, had serve me enough. I don't need or want a bady-sitter to take care of everything for me.
Again..... if you have PROVE that Npark known about the rotting branch and did nothing...... I support your claim that Govt is at fault all the way..... -
But government a55 lickers here are claiming that the government is not at fault if a rotting tree branch hits anybody on the streets.Originally posted by BillyBong:This is a clear cut case. I once witnessed a neighbour's tree roots damaging the concrete walls of their neighbour - claimable? Definitely. The basis stems from a tree growing in the defendant's house, while the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant's organic 'property'.
To government a55 lickers,
I mean I know you are like the government et al and would support it regardless of whether it is just to do so.
But please, have more convincing arguments. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Did this case happen in S'pore..... NO
1. If it can be reasonably forsee that the occurence of the event will happen with a heavy storm, it won't free the government from liability.
[b]Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
Brief Fact Summary
Plaintiff was running his car on borough street in a violent wind storm. As he passed under a tree, it was blown down crushing the roof of his car and causing him serious injury. Plaintiff was running his car in excess of the speed limit as permitted by a borough ordinance.
Rule of Law and Holding
Plaintiff's rate of speed did not cause or contribute to the harm that he suffered. His actions did not increase the foreseeable likelihood that a tree would fall on his car. It cannot be said that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Thus, Plaintiff's recovery is sustained.
2. It's their responsibility to maintain the trees in proper condition.
3. Citizens do not have a liability to the general public.
4. [/b] Too bad lor.... 
-
there really is nothing more to argue with someone such as you who are bent on labeling those against your argument as ardent government supporters.
frankly, i'm not really a great fan or supporter of pap. i have laid down what i wanted say as objectively as i can be and u can either take it or shove it up. i don't give a flying f[/i]uck if you're gonna dig up dirt on me and assume my profession or watever, which i don't really have the time or low maturity to do.Originally posted by maurizio13:
But government a55 lickers here are claiming that the government is not at fault if a rotting tree branch hits anybody on the streets.
To government a55 lickers,
I mean I know you are like the government et al and would support it regardless of whether it is just to do so.
But please, have more convincing arguments. -
Calm down lah Bro/Sis...... with 5000 posts already, you should have gotten used to it by now.Originally posted by newcomer:there really is nothing more to argue with someone such as you who are bent on labeling those against your argument as ardent government supporters.
frankly, i'm not really a great fan or supporter of pap. i have laid down what i wanted say as objectively as i can be and u can either take it or shove it up. i don't give a flying f[/i]uck if you're gonna dig up dirt on me and assume my profession or watever, which i don't really have the time or low maturity to do. -
You people got nothing else to find to blame on the government, is it?
-
nah, that was a closing statement. enuf has been said already.
if i wasn't calm i would have flamed jawinski when he said i should get knocked by a tree instead of thanking him of his commentOriginally posted by hloc:Calm down lah Bro/Sis...... with 5000 posts already, you should have gotten used to it by now. -
This is not about pro or anti governance. This is about ridiculous blame pinning when there is no blame in the first place.Originally posted by maurizio13:But government a55 lickers here are claiming that the government is not at fault if a rotting tree branch hits anybody on the streets.
To government a55 lickers,
I mean I know you are like the government et al and would support it regardless of whether it is just to do so.
But please, have more convincing arguments.
How can the government be at fault if you are hit by a tree branch in a storm? Seriously, are you so blinded by your hate of the government that you would blame every single minor thing on it, no matter how remotely linked to the government it is?
Everytime a maniac like you makes a statement like this, the opposition parties take a step back. Silly accusations like this is why the opposition party is largely considered a laughing stock.