NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !
-
Originally posted by hloc:
Then you have to ask yourself, is a peaceful protest 100% a violent riot.
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.
Again.....[b] 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.
[/b]
If you cannot reasonably forsee the occurence of that event (e.g. like a brick perch on top a tree will fall when a heavy gust of wind blows) like a riot occuring (because protesters were holding knifes, parangs, sticks, wearing mask and helmets). How can you be certain that a riot will occur because of the protest? There are many peaceful protest going around all over the world, doesn't mean that a peaceful protest will 100% lead to violence.
Only if members of the public complain then N. Parks is at fault, like as if everyone has those elevator cranes to sneak a peek at the branches up close. That's like telling customers who take ferris wheel ride that, only if they see a possible failure in the ferris wheel and report it, then the business owner will be liable for negligence if the ferris wheel falls apart. I am glad you are not operating the MRT system, because I have no access to the tracks to tell you that the tracks are damaged if they are.
If a healthy tree were to break and fall due to storm or earthquake. Then you have to ask yourself about reasonably forseeable, is it expected that the tree will fall during a storm (because a storm is common in Singapore), if it is then it's N. Park's liability because they forsee the occurence but did not take action. If you talk about earthquakes, what is the magnitude of earthquake, because there are no major quakes in Singapore as yet. If a 6.0 ritcher scale quake happens and the tree falls then it was unexpected, because quakes don't happen in Singapore, so it's not reasonably forseeable, so it's an act of god.
Take the case of,
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/
Wasn't there a violent wind storm, yet the defendant wasn't discharged from the suit.
Ermm.....
I disagree with your statement that if my pot of plant were to fall, I would not be at fault, because a person can resonably forsee that the potted plant's fall will hurt someone. As for the earthquake causing the potted plant to fall, I think I would still be at fault because I can reasonably forsee that the plant can fall and hurt someone below. Does not mean just because it's an earthquake it's an act of god and can disclaim all liability. Same as the N.Park's case.
Well, not having enough manpower is not an excuse for negligence. With their knowledge of botany, they can implement a system to identify problem trees or areas where they think trees will be at risk. It's not all the trees in Singapore, only trees which are in publicly accessible areas. -
double standard wif pappies' mentality.Originally posted by Jamie Zawinski:i recalled a similar incident last year.
a tree branch fell on a car at potong pasir, ah seng blamed chiam see tong's town council of not doing their job maintaining the trees and should be responsible
-
Huh?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.
Did I specifically mean you???
Guilt ridden???
I didn't mean anybody specifically.
Why did you raised your hand to admit? -
Originally posted by hloc:
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in Singapore there is no legal standing. Singapore's legal system is based on common law, based on cases from the past, there is some legal precedence in some jurisdiction. It's possible to form some legal arguments based on the case and the judge's ruling.
Did this case happen in S'pore..... [b]NO Too bad lor.... 
[/b]
In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a "matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis. -
If such a situation happened to two private individuals.Originally posted by deathbait:This is not about pro or anti governance. This is about ridiculous blame pinning when there is no blame in the first place.
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.
A person with trees in his front lawn, during a storm a tree got uprooted and hit a car.
Do you think the government a55 lickers will say, the person with the trees is free from blame?
Do you think that the vehicle owner will not take legal actions to recover the cost of his repairs?
Let me ask you then, in such a case, person with tree in front lawn, during storm the tree fell on a car.
Do you think the person with the tree is liable for the repairs of the car? -
TS mentioned NEA. i wondering why these pap asslickers guilt-ridden to think the whole thing is pin-point at the government. who is the one making the wooha here?Originally posted by maurizio13:Huh?
Did I specifically mean you???
Guilt ridden???
I didn't mean anybody specifically.
Why did you raised your hand to admit? -
I would like to say that NEA is free from blame, but it is their responsibility to maintain healthy trees. If they think that a heavy storm will cause the tree to break off and injure someone, they should get someone to cut off that part of the tree.Originally posted by 798:TS mentioned NEA. i wondering why these pap asslickers guilt-ridden to think the whole thing is pin-point at the government. who is the one making the wooha here? -
agree! since NO ONE can cut down the trees except they themselves.Originally posted by maurizio13:I would like to say that NEA is free from blame, but it is their responsibility to maintain healthy trees. If they think that a heavy storm will cause the tree to break off and injure someone, they should get someone to cut off that part of the tree.
beforehand they should take measure to prevent these sort of incident to happen. -
... I believe it would definitely be a different story if one fell on some MP's car... -
n if the accident occur in opposition distinct like potong pasir or hougang will be even different.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... I believe it would definitely be a different story if one fell on some MP's car... -
There is probably no way to prevent a tree/branch from falling during a storm. Ultimately NParks will deny any responsibility. If the victim wants to pursue she would have to go to court, which is not a bad thing. At least there is a stand.Originally posted by maurizio13:I would like to say that NEA is free from blame, but it is their responsibility to maintain healthy trees. If they think that a heavy storm will cause the tree to break off and injure someone, they should get someone to cut off that part of the tree. -
Dear Maurizio
Thank you for putting up that link. It's very informative.
The defendent had argued that the driver, by driving over the speed limit, had been negligent. So far so good. Then they said that if the car had not been speeding, or had been driven slower, it would not have arrived at that exact spot at that time. Again so far so good.
Then they said that by neglecting to follow speed limits, the driver arrived at that exact spot at that exact time, thus being right under the falling tree and thereby contributing to the damage.
The court decided that argument was not valid.
I don't see what this has to do with this thread. -
Dear Maurizio,Originally posted by maurizio13:If such a situation happened to two private individuals.
A person with trees in his front lawn, during a storm a tree got uprooted and hit a car.
Do you think the government a55 lickers will say, the person with the trees is free from blame?
Do you think that the vehicle owner will not take legal actions to recover the cost of his repairs?
Let me ask you then, in such a case, person with tree in front lawn, during storm the tree fell on a car.
Do you think the person with the tree is liable for the repairs of the car?
I think in this specific example, the tort of escape applies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v._Fletcher -
Thats not true. I had posted earlier that when I wrote in, they had acted swiftly. This is from my own experience.Originally posted by 798:agree! since NO ONE can cut down the trees except they themselves.
beforehand they should take measure to prevent these sort of incident to happen. -
Dear Maurizio
My opinion on potted plants on ledges.
I think the government made a mistake to pass that law. I think laws like this encourage people not to use their good sense. Instead they wait for the Government to pass a law telling them what to do. -
i'm just amazed people can link something as simple and natural as a tree branch falling in a storm on the government.
it's so telling in two ways:
1) some ppl so blindly hate the gov they take leave of their senses
2) some ppl really feel they need the gov to take care of every single thing in life
A storm blew
A tree branch fell
it's a natural process
what...you're gonna blame the gov for getting wet in the rain because they didn't build shelters for you next? -
... who does the trees belong to?
... On what land are the trees growing & standing on?
... Who is in charge of trees in adn around SG?
... why do people in SG pay Taxes for?
Four compelling reasons, why we think who should shoulder the responsibility... -
So i'm assuming you'll be raising hell in this scenario:
you're driving along a road and suddenly lightning hits the tree beside you, causing it to fall on your car.
your four points hold true too in this case.
freak accident man. I can't believe this is taking 3 pages -
... your example of lightning striking a tree which caused it to fall upon my vehicle, will then be truly called "Act of God"...Originally posted by deathbait:So i'm assuming you'll be raising hell in this scenario:
you're driving along a road and suddenly lightning hits the tree beside you, causing it to fall on your car.
your four points hold true too in this case.
freak accident man. I can't believe this is taking 3 pages
... in the case wherein an aging tree which branches over-hangs heavily which breaks and falls upon people & people's properties, aren't exactly "Acts of God", but in my opinion, "Events of Negligence"... -
One question: who is in charge of the weather that broke that tree branch?Originally posted by HyperFocal:... who does the trees belong to?
... On what land are the trees growing & standing on?
... Who is in charge of trees in adn around SG?
... why do people in SG pay Taxes for?
Four compelling reasons, why we think who should shoulder the responsibility...
Smart sia you guys.... blaming an Act of God on NParks.... -
And one more thing....Originally posted by HyperFocal:... your example of lightning striking a tree which caused it to fall upon my vehicle, will then be truly called "Act of God"...
... in the case wherein an aging tree which branches over-hangs heavily which breaks and falls upon people & people's properties, aren't exactly "Acts of God", but in my opinion, "Events of Negligence"...
Before you even dare say 'Events of Negligence', you must first of all prove that there was actual wilful neglect on the part of NParks.
If the tree had already been reported to NParks as being old and diseased, and NParks disregarded the report, then fair enough, they were being neglectful.
Otherwise, please don't tell me that they must be on constant standby, watching over every single damn tree along every road and every carpark in Singapore. And please don't tell me that NParks actually has the huge amount of resources and manpower to pull that off, either.
As far as I can see, they've been doing a pretty good job pruning tree branches and shrubs around Singapore, and I can't exactly blame them if one tree in some carpark doesn't get their attention for a while.
Like it or not, this event constitutes an Act of God in the eyes of the law, and pushing the blame to a mortal agency is really stretching it. -
add to that of course, that unless the branch was dead and rotten in the first place, there was no way anyone would zoom in on a healthy branch and say:
"gee...i bet that would break off in an extremely unusually strong wind. Let's cut that down" -
... Like I said earlier; I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it had struck an MP's car...Originally posted by fudgester:And one more thing....
Before you even dare say 'Events of Negligence', you must first of all prove that there was actual wilful neglect on the part of NParks.
If the tree had already been reported to NParks as being old and diseased, and NParks disregarded the report, then fair enough, they were being neglectful.
Otherwise, please don't tell me that they must be on constant standby, watching over every single damn tree along every road and every carpark in Singapore. And please don't tell me that NParks actually has the huge amount of resources and manpower to pull that off, either.
As far as I can see, they've been doing a pretty good job pruning tree branches and shrubs around Singapore, and I can't exactly blame them if one tree in some carpark doesn't get their attention for a while.
Like it or not, this event constitutes an Act of God in the eyes of the law, and pushing the blame to a mortal agency is really stretching it.
.. and of course, it is still Act of God in the eyes of THEIR Law... -
you would lose that betOriginally posted by HyperFocal:... Like I said earlier; I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it had struck an MP's car...
.. and of course, it is still Act of God in the eyes of THEIR Law... -
... then, lets wait for that to happen... and perhaps even more...Originally posted by deathbait:you would lose that bet