NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !
-
Hi... morning.
Just read on the papers today.....
The lady car owner was unable to point out to the Npark people which tree that the branch fall from. Npark claim on '1st glance', all trees in the area are health....... Npark said that they check on trees along the major roads every 18 mth and minor roads every 24mths for health and condition. -
-
Dear Maurizio
I think I see the misunderstanding.
The condition of the tree as well as other factors are also important to the case as a whole but were not the factors being examined in this particular argument.
This was limited to whether the vehicle's speed being above the speed limit constituted contributory negligence. The court decided the case could not be lost on these grounds.
However, the case was won on other grounds. -
... here's a thought; if you were involved in an accident and your car somehow damaged a tree, would you not be ORDERED to pay for damaging the tree?
... since this is so, then what Act do people have to indemnify themselves from having to pay for damaging a tree in an accident - be it the fault is yours or not..? -
Sorry.... I have not heard of anyone who damage a tree in an accident was made to pay for the damage.... unless you damage the tree knowingly....Originally posted by HyperFocal:... here's a thought; if you were involved in an accident and your car somehow damaged a tree, would you not be ORDERED to pay for damaging the tree?
... since this is so, then what Act do people have to indemnify themselves from having to pay for damaging a tree in an accident - be it the fault is yours or not..? -
Originally posted by hloc:
... oh, I have...
[b]Sorry.... I have not heard of anyone who damage a tree in an accident was made to pay for the damage.... unless you damage the tree knowingly....[/b] -
never heard of compensation for accidentally hurting a tree.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... here's a thought; if you were involved in an accident and your car somehow damaged a tree, would you not be ORDERED to pay for damaging the tree?
... since this is so, then what Act do people have to indemnify themselves from having to pay for damaging a tree in an accident - be it the fault is yours or not..?
Vandalism on the other hand....but that's another debate for another thread -
Then show prove lah.......Originally posted by HyperFocal:... oh, I have... -
really?Originally posted by HyperFocal:... oh, I have...
that would be an interesting case.
Bearing in mind it has to be an accident, not a delibrate attempt to hurt a tree. -
I wonder if the hongkies or taiwanese or the japanese sues their goverment for property damage after a typhoon ? ....
hey ! ... so who's going to join me in my hunger strike to demand a new hamster from the goverment ? ....
-
my coney died! i oso want hunger strike.Originally posted by Fatum:I wonder if the hongkies or taiwanese or the japanese sues their goverment for property damage after a typhoon ? ....
hey ! ... so who's going to join me in my hunger strike to demand a new hamster from the goverment ? .... -
Sorry dude..... I think we are still waiting for your prove if any.....Originally posted by HyperFocal:... oh, I have...
-
... let me put everything nicely together first...Originally posted by hloc:Sorry dude..... I think we are still waiting for your prove if any..... -
IMO, we shouldnt be blaming the Government over this unfortunate event.
It was an accident caused by bad weather and we have absolutely no control over weather.
Moreover, as far as I know, the agency in charge, NEA, do regularly check the health of the trees, especially those along the roadsides. We know they are doing their work. Maybe they should have be more prudent and cut away those 'more dangerous branches'.
NParks should give an apology and we can get on with our lives.
I'm actually quite perplexed that this incident can be blamed on Government.
edited for typo errors -
Originally posted by hloc:Sorry.... I have not heard of anyone who damage a tree in an accident was made to pay for the damage.... unless you damage the tree knowingly....
deathbait & hloc,Originally posted by deathbait:really?
that would be an interesting case.
Bearing in mind it has to be an accident, not a delibrate attempt to hurt a tree.
Are you trolling; or are you little girl with limited knowledge of how things actually work in the real world?
Your logic is quite unique and uncommon.
If an accident happens and the aggrieved party has suffered damages, he can't claim damages because it's an accident.
If Car A hits Car B, Car B hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian can't claim any damages suffered because it was not a deliberate attempt to hurt him?
Looks like all the 3rd party claims which all motorist have been claiming is a figment of their imagination.
We lost Gazelle in Speaker's Corner, now we have you to take over his place. Your logic is as profound and abstract as his.
Seriously, we miss Gazelle's antics in here, at least we have you to take over from him now.
Welcome to Speaker's Corner, I hope you can provide us with more of your entertaining views.
=======================================================
hloc,
Seems like hloc's scuba diving trips has taken a toll on his intelligence. Water pressure during scuba diving can prevent the growth of synapses in your neurons. Seriously, we have lots of morons here already, don't want to see another Singaporean turn into a vegetative state. Take care dude you are sounding more illogical these days.
As ambient pressure increases, hydrostatic compression of the central nervous system, combined with increasing levels of inspired PO2, PCO2, and N2 partial pressure, has deleterious effects on neuronal function, resulting in O2 toxicity, CO2 toxicity, N2 narcosis, and high-pressure nervous syndrome. The cellular mechanisms responsible for each disorder have been difficult to study by using classic in vitro electrophysiological methods, due to the physical barrier imposed by the sealed pressure chamber and mechanical disturbances during tissue compression. Improved chamber designs and methods have made such experiments feasible in mammalian neurons, especially at ambient pressures <5 atmospheres absolute (ATA). Here we summarize these methods, the physiologically relevant test pressures, potential research applications, and results of previous research, focusing on the significance of electrophysiological studies at <5 ATA. Intracellular recordings and tissue PO2 measurements in slices of rat brain demonstrate how to differentiate the neuronal effects of increased gas pressures from pressure per se. Examples also highlight the use of hyperoxia (3 ATA O2) as a model for studying the cellular mechanisms of oxidative stress in the mammalian central nervous system.
anesthesia; carbon dioxide toxicity; free radicals; high-pressure nervous syndrome; membrane potential; nitrogen narcosis; oxidative stress; oxygen toxicity; polarographic oxygen electrode
Source: Journal of Applied Physiology
One quote to describe some of the participants in this forum.
A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wiseman can answer in seven years.
This forum has gone to the dogs!!! -
Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.
10. —(1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.
(2) No person shall —
(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or
(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to —
(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;
(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and
(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.
[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25] -
STOMPer Gilbert said a large tree branch fell and damaged his car, but when he went to his insurance company, it said that he is accountable for 50% of the blame.
"If we were 50% to blame for the falling tree branch, does that mean the other 50% of the blame goes to the tree?" the STOMPer asked.
According to the STOMPer, he was in the Portsdown Road area at about 3pm last Thursday (Dec 6) when he heard a crunching noise outside, and found out later that a large tree branch had fallen on the bonnet of his car.
He said that when he asked his insurance company how he should get the car repaired, they told him to go to an independent damage assessment centre (IDAC), for the extent of the damage to be certified.
The STOMPer said the insurance company told him that he was considered 50% to blame and that he would lose his no-claim discount, without explaining how the policy actually works.
"Does anyone have any idea how this works, how to appeal, and who to inform about what seems a very unfair policy?" the STOMPer asked in his email to STOMP.
The STOMPer, however, directed STOMP to the consumer portal "MoneySENSE", to clarify the issue of the no-claim discount.
STOMP checked the website and it states:
"You (insurance policyholder) are entitled to a No-Claim Discount (NCD) if no claim has been made against your policy, either by yourself or by a third party for a period of 12 months between each successive renewal of the policy (such practice may vary across different insurance companies).
"The NCD reduces the premium you have to pay for the following year."
However, the policy also states that the NCD of the policyholder may be affected if he or she is found to be partly responsible for an accident.
Update:
STOMPer Gilbert contacted STOMP again on Dec 23 with updates. This is his account:
"Thanks to Stompers for advice. We fixed car and contacted National Parks. We'll post the outcome, if any.
"Parking along roads within Wessex Estate is legal. Unless they can walk a kilometer or more, every visitor or tenant must park along the road.
"Webster dictionary defines "Act of God" as "a natural and unavoidable catastrophe that interrupts the expected course of events," and a falling branch (especially if it falls on us) is thus more tragedy than catastrophe.
"In most countries, insurance would pay without argument, and policyholders would not lose the discount for the first claim of this type. However, does not seem to be true for Singapore."
Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/viewContent.jsp?id=10602 -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
... woah you sure are fast...
[b]Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.
10. —(1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.
(2) No person shall —
(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or
(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to —
(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;
(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and
(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.
[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25]
[/b]
... I'm still waiting for someone to email me his accident report & outcome of accident involving damaged tree... -
I'm a little confused by your aggression in this question.Originally posted by maurizio13:deathbait & hloc,
Are you trolling; or are you little girl with limited knowledge of how things actually work in the real world?
Your logic is quite unique and uncommon.
If an accident happens and the aggrieved party has suffered damages, he can't claim damages because it's an accident.
If Car A hits Car B, Car B hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian can't claim any damages suffered because it was not a deliberate attempt to hurt him?
Looks like all the 3rd party claims which all motorist have been claiming is a figment of their imagination.
We lost Gazelle in Speaker's Corner, now we have you to take over his place. Your logic is as profound and abstract as his.
Seriously, we miss Gazelle's antics in here, at least we have you to take over from him now.
Welcome to Speaker's Corner, I hope you can provide us with more of your entertaining views.
=======================================================
hloc,
Seems like hloc's scuba diving trips has taken a toll on his intelligence. Water pressure during scuba diving can prevent the growth of synapses in your neurons. Seriously, we have lots of morons here already, don't want to see another Singaporean turn into a vegetative state. Take care dude you are sounding more illogical these days.
As ambient pressure increases, hydrostatic compression of the central nervous system, combined with increasing levels of inspired PO2, PCO2, and N2 partial pressure, has deleterious effects on neuronal function, resulting in O2 toxicity, CO2 toxicity, N2 narcosis, and high-pressure nervous syndrome. The cellular mechanisms responsible for each disorder have been difficult to study by using classic in vitro electrophysiological methods, due to the physical barrier imposed by the sealed pressure chamber and mechanical disturbances during tissue compression. Improved chamber designs and methods have made such experiments feasible in mammalian neurons, especially at ambient pressures <5 atmospheres absolute (ATA). Here we summarize these methods, the physiologically relevant test pressures, potential research applications, and results of previous research, focusing on the significance of electrophysiological studies at <5 ATA. Intracellular recordings and tissue PO2 measurements in slices of rat brain demonstrate how to differentiate the neuronal effects of increased gas pressures from pressure per se. Examples also highlight the use of hyperoxia (3 ATA O2) as a model for studying the cellular mechanisms of oxidative stress in the mammalian central nervous system.
anesthesia; carbon dioxide toxicity; free radicals; high-pressure nervous syndrome; membrane potential; nitrogen narcosis; oxidative stress; oxygen toxicity; polarographic oxygen electrode
Source: Journal of Applied Physiology
One quote to describe some of the participants in this forum.
A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wiseman can answer in seven years.
This forum has gone to the dogs!!!
Are you implying it's common knowledge that drivers who crash their cars into trees end up paying for damaging a tree? -
... so technically, are you implying you do not possess this 'common knowledge'?Originally posted by deathbait:I'm a little confused by your aggression in this question.
Are you implying it's common knowledge that drivers who crash their cars into trees end up paying for damaging a tree? -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Looks like the moronic maurizio is bent on displaying his ignorance again. This piece of legislation deals with wilful destruction, not damage in the event of an accident. Looks like he needs to return to school for some instruction in basic English Comprehension.
[b]Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.
10. —(1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.
(2) No person shall —
(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or
(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to —
(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;
(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and
(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.
[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25]
[/b] -
NPB have to strike a balance of keeping trees and cut trees with
potential risks.Do not force them to cut too much.
It is Act of God!! -
Dear maurizio13
The example you brought up was very interesting.
I don't think the fact that he parked illegally makes him jointly liable. The precedent you posted earlier would seem to bear this out.
He should report them to CASE. -
Claims against Insurance follows contract law.
Claims against another party where no contract exists follow the law of tort.
Claims (fines) by the Government follows the legislation. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Seems like somebody here has a problem understanding "No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical". Time to take some good old English while you are in the UK now. This is kinda hard to believe coming from a person of your calibre. An accident will occur when either one party is negligent, failed to maintain ensure due care when switching lanes, failed to keep proper distance from the car in front, etc. One party of a motor vehicle will most need to prove the negligence of the other party, in order for him to pursue his claim for damages.
Looks like the moronic maurizio is bent on displaying his ignorance again. This piece of legislation deals with [b]wilful destruction, not damage in the event of an accident. Looks like he needs to return to school for some instruction in basic English Comprehension.[/b]
Seriously, the standard of your English is appalling despite you being in the UK. Just some personal advice you should get yourself more indemnity insurance for malpractice.