NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !
-
Only when people gets hurt, then they will realise...
-
so r u putting the blame on GOD n offence christian community???Originally posted by fudgester:One question: who is in charge of the weather that broke that tree branch?
Smart sia you guys.... blaming an Act of God on NParks.... -
I said that You should prove that there was wilful neglect on the part of NParks if you want to accuse them of negligence.Originally 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...
You chose to shrug that aside and put forth a hypothetical scenario based on your feelings in place of a rebuttal.
I rest my case.
-
... I don't have to do the proving, the current windy stormy weather system will do that...Originally posted by fudgester:I said that You should prove that there was wilful neglect on the part of NParks if you want to accuse them of negligence.
You chose to shrug that aside and put forth a hypothetical scenario based on your feelings in place of a rebuttal.
I rest my case.
... and what case is there to rest, when you already said there isn't one...? -
Gosh... you really don't know the legal meaning of 'Acts of God', do you?Originally posted by 798:so r u putting the blame on GOD n offence christian community???
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/act-of-god.htm
Sigh.... I'm outta here.
-
when stormy weather want Nparks to apologise....
then when very hot sunny weather which occurs 75% of the time
how you intend to thank Nparks lehhhhhh
for the trees nice shade and growth worrrr
anyway Act of God means... suay loh - why so many cars pass under in storm. then suay suay hit this one... -
Why would you think I'm going to complain about a tree branch dropping on an MP's car?Originally posted by HyperFocal:... then, lets wait for that to happen... and perhaps even more... -
That's a refreshing point of view. How many of you ppl complaining now have written in letters to thank Nparks for the shade and scenery on good days?Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:when stormy weather want Nparks to apologise....
then when very hot sunny weather which occurs 75% of the time
how you intend to thank Nparks lehhhhhh
for the trees nice shade and growth worrrr
anyway Act of God means... suay loh - why so many cars pass under in storm. then suay suay hit this one... -
i think the only question to ask is if regular maintainence and checks were really done. as in there really was unreasonable neglect on Npark's part........
-
My Hamster died ! ....
it's all the goverment's fault ! .....
PAP ! xia tai ! .. PAP ! xia tai ! .... give me a new hammie ! ...
-
It's mother natureOriginally posted by qpicanto:Someone could have been killed, as usual blames on monsoon and strong wind. Come on , monsoon season dont happpen this year or last, and haven't they heard of climate change ?
If they cannot manage so many trees, chop them off for goodness sake before lives are lost .
Where is their graciousness ?
anyway no insurance covers you from mother nature -
There there..... I'm sure CJS will take up your case and bring matters to the UN....Originally posted by Fatum:My Hamster died ! ....
it's all the goverment's fault ! .....
PAP ! xia tai ! .. PAP ! xia tai ! .... give me a new hammie ! ... -
I'll go on a hunger strike if there's no hammie by the weekend ! ....Originally posted by hloc:There there..... I'm sure CJS will take up your case and bring matters to the UN.... -
ahahahahahahahahahahaOriginally posted by Fatum:I'll go on a hunger strike if there's no hammie by the weekend ! .... -
one cannot dispute the importance of trees but are they placed at the right location and not causing more harm than good. Why cant we plant shrub along the expressways like those along airports boulevard?Originally posted by newcomer:these are freak accidents man. what can u do about it? chop em all up? best way to deal with it is trim the branches.
trees and its leaves are useful and important to a clean environment. would u believe our air would have been much much more polluted if there weren't any trees? they act like filters and collect the dust on their leaves and they cleanse our air. and do u know that 1 tree is equivalent to 10 huge aircons? they're a function of weather mind you.
juz becuz one tree fell and destroyed a $1000 windshield ppl start wanting to take down trees. death/injury caused by falling trees/branches are not quite common, driving is.
When a tree collapsed, the whole expressway traffics pile up, SCDF NS/regular will spent the whole night chain sawing away the humongous trees trunk (just one branch alone can kill a motor rider, mind you ) in the RAIN , risking electrocution and lightning strike.
The trees too closed to road side posed a danger to vehicles that went out of control and smashed into the perfect hard place wrecking the vehicle.
It blocks the light from the lampposts and landmarks in orchard roads.
It is not too long ago when the tree fell crusing the vehicle delaying a pregant woman journey to hospital in front of maju camp.
It would take years just to cut the very old and dying trees with signs such as skin peeling, spongy trunk , fallen branches and not much foliage, which are found in plenty in jurong west st 41/51 and along Bt Timah road.
These are the trees that must go !
Its Nparks responsibility to ask for more help if they need one. -
Thats what most of us had been saying..... Show prove that Npark known about that danger of the tree branch and did nothing, then we could agree that Npark is at faultOriginally posted by hisoka:i think the only question to ask is if regular maintainence and checks were really done. as in there really was unreasonable neglect on Npark's part........
As far as we know, that tree was in good health and condition. Why cut of the branches without a good reason
How is Npark to know when a storm strong enough to break or uproots a trees suppose to come
Have any one here been to 'Old' Thomson Road...... look at all those beautiful flame of the forest growing alone the road side..... every tree had branches that spread out towards the road forming a great green canopy..... If Npark we to do what some suggested here..... what we'll have will be nothing but bare road.
-
fair enough the storm is mother nature But the tree is artificially planted.Originally posted by sbst275:It's mother nature
anyway no insurance covers you from mother nature -
The problem here is, there are too many kids and adults who have limited knowledge that behave like kids.
Act of God aka Force Majeure
Force majeure (French for "greater force" ) is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as war, strike, riot, crime, act of nature (e.g., flooding, earthquake, volcano) , prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure -
in that case, someone pray tell me if this tree's branches will fall and hit somebody during a rain storm ? ....
..... -
and the branch fell off because the TREE was artificially planted?Originally posted by qpicanto:fair enough the storm is mother nature But the tree is artificially planted.
wow. Just wow. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
and too many kids pretending to be adults.
The problem here is, there are too many kids and adults who have limited knowledge that behave like kids.
[b]Act of God aka Force Majeure
Force majeure (French for "greater force" ) is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as war, strike, riot, crime, act of nature (e.g., flooding, earthquake, volcano) , prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure
[/b]
prove negligence and we'll entertain your accusations. I recall something about innocent until proven guilty. So far all you've come up with is rhetorics.
What, because the accused here happens to represent someone you don't like, you can change the rules? -
Ermmm.....this is not the courts, I don't have the privilege of cross examining anybody and there are no physical evidence. We are only basing arguments on circumstantial. Rhetorics with substantiated links and case files??? Seems like you are more likely the person with the rhetorics, you make statements with no explanation and no supporting links or sources for your arguments.Originally posted by deathbait:and too many kids pretending to be adults.
prove negligence and we'll entertain your accusations. I recall something about innocent until proven guilty. So far all you've come up with is rhetorics.
What, because the accused here happens to represent someone you don't like, you can change the rules?
Rhetorics:
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
Whether the accused is representing someone whom I like or don't like has no merits in how I think, based on the facts in the case, I try my best to reason who is in the wrong. I am not like others who bulldoze their way thru just to support their favourite person or group. If something is inherently wrong, I will not stick my nose in it and bulldoze my way thru just in support of that person or someone.
I admit that I do make mistakes at times, if it's a mistake I made, I will not hesitate to admit it. I don't have an argue to win at all cost strategy, I only argue based on the merits of the case/issue. Though I am often against the government's policies, I do no engage in supporting or critisizing policies which I think are alright or sound.Originally posted by Gazelle:The S$60,000 cap is the maximum amount you can enjoy the 1% increase in CPF rate. ie. if you have $120,000 in your CPF, only $60,000 will enjoy the 1%.
If you refer back to CPF statistic on page 84, total number of people will $60,000 and above is 937,596, which mean, S$56,225,760,000 of CPF from this group will benefit from the 1% hike, which will cost the government $562,225,760
As for those below $60,000 group their total CPF value is S$12,015,540,000, of which 100% will benefit from the 1% interest hike and will cost the government = $120,014,540.
Total Cost : $562,225,820 + $120,014,540 = $682,713,040
Go easy on the arse, because I just had diarrhea this morning...
I have stated my case, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Well, I admit I was wrong on my calculation, but I based my understanding that this measure was to help the low and middle class Singaporeans as mentioned by him in his speech. How come it includes the rich now? -
Huh?Originally posted by phil30k: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.
Go read the case again slowly.
He sued for damages, the defendant defence was plaintiff exceeded speed limit. But the facts of the case is, the tree fell, hit the car and the plaintiff was awarded damages (Plaintiff's recovery is sustained).
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. -
I admit that as Singaporeans, we are most oft deprived of our most fundamental rights, therefore most have no clue as to their rights and legal rights as a free person.
Perhaps the local press and government is right, we have not reached a stage of mental development to encourage free press and democracy. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Just as an example of how easy it is to manipulate "official" documents, let's have a full review of this case:
Huh?
Go read the case again slowly.
He sued for damages, the defendant defence was plaintiff exceeded speed limit. But the facts of the case is, the tree fell, hit the car and the plaintiff was awarded damages (Plaintiff's recovery is sustained).
[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.
[/b]
Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
43 A. 240
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1899
OPINION BY: FELL.
The plaintiff was a motorman in the employ of the Wilkes-Barre and Wyoming Valley Traction Company on its line running from Wilkes-Barre to the borough of Sugar Notch. The ordinance by virtue of which the company was permitted to lay its track and operate its cars in the borough of Sugar Notch contained a provision that the speed of the cars while on the streets of the borough should not exceed eight miles an hour. On the line of the road, and within the borough limits, there was a large chestnut tree, as to the condition of which there was some dispute at the trial. The question of the negligence of the borough in permitting it to remain must, however, be considered as set at rest by the verdict. On the day of the accident the plaintiff was running his car on the borough street in a violent wind-storm, and as he passed under the tree it was blown down, crushing the roof of the car and causing the plaintiff's injury. There is some conflict of testimony as to the speed at which the car was running, but it seems to be fairly well established that it was considerably in excess of the rate permitted by the borough ordinance.
We do not think that the fact that the plaintiff was running his car at a higher rate of speed than eight miles an hour affects his right to recover. It may be that in doing so he violated the ordinance by virtue of which the company was permitted to operate its cars in the streets of the borough, but he certainly was not for that reason without rights upon the streets. Nor can it be said that the speed was the cause of the accident, or contributed to it. It might have been otherwise if the tree had fallen before the car reached it; for in that case a high rate of speed might have rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to avoid a collision which he either foresaw or should have foreseen. Even in that case the ground for denying him the right to recover would be that he had been guilty of contributory negligence, and not that he had violated a borough ordinance. The testimony however shows that the tree fell upon the car as it passed beneath. With this phase of the case in view, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the speed was the immediate cause of the plaintiff's injury, inasmuch as it was the particular speed at which he was running which brought the car to the place of the accident at the moment when the tree blew down. This argument, while we cannot deny its ingenuity, strikes us, to say the least, as being somewhat sophistical. That his speed brought him to the place of the accident at the moment of the accident was the merest chance, and a thing which no foresight could have predicted. The same thing might as readily have happened to a car running slowly, or it might have been that a high speed alone would have carried him beyond the tree to a place of safety. It was also argued by the appellant's counsel that, even if the speed was not the sole efficient cause of the accident, it at least contributed to its severity, and materially increased the damage. It may be that it did. But what basis could a jury have for finding such to be the case; and, should they so find, what guide could be given them for differentiating between the injury done this man and the injury which would have been done a man in a similar accident on a car running at a speed of eight miles an hour or less?
The judgment is affirmed.
As you can see, the defence came up with the lousy argument that speeding was the main cause. They lost that argument. But the reason the law swung in the motorist's favor was because the condition of the tree such that it was questionable that it was still up at all.
Since the condition of the tree in our case is not determined, my point in this is that there is as yet no incriminating evidence.
A lawyer(you implied quite a few times you're at least familiar with law) such as yourself should know that one should not cast blame before incriminating evidence surfaces. That is exactly what you have done. And that is my whole point in this.
If you were to ASSUME the tree was rotten to the core or dead, may I also assume that it was the car designer's fault not to make the car tree-proof?