NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !
-
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.Originally posted by lionnoisy: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!!
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure
If your definition of storm being an Act of God were true, then it would be a very sad day for alot of insurance contracts.
Meaning, if there were ever a storm and motorist gets involved in accidents, they won't be able to process any insurance claim, due to your fallacious definition of "Act of God" (aka force majeure). Most (or almost all) insurance contracts exclude claims for Act of God, if you don't understand already. -
yesOriginally posted by HyperFocal:... so technically, are you implying you do not possess this 'common knowledge'?
And I would like a case study to close the book on this.
Still waiting on yours hyperfocal. If i recall, you were looking for one. -
.. correction; awaiting an email copy of what transpired in an accident...Originally posted by deathbait:yes
And I would like a case study to close the book on this.
Still waiting on yours hyperfocal. If i recall, you were looking for one.
.. as well as Npark's email on Compensation for damaged tree/s... -
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]
-
In that case, I wait with bated breathOriginally posted by HyperFocal:.. correction; awaiting an email copy of what transpired in an accident...
.. as well as Npark's email on Compensation for damaged tree/s... -
M13 seems to be unable to understand my question to HF......
HF claims that he had 'prove' that a person in a traffic accident which involve with the damage of a tree.... is made to repay Npark for the damage tree.....
The little post M13 did shows only the insurance company refusing to paid to repair the damage..... what had it to do with Npark asking the driver to pay
and also......Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.
The 'red' part said "wilfully or negligently" & "knowingly"...... where did it said that even if you were involve in an accident, you would have to pay for the damage
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]
And M13..... do grow up.... even with my scuba diving trips .... I still make more sense than you. Sadly that last doctor appointment didn't help you much..... -
[quote]Originally posted by maurizio13:
Most Singaporeans have little knowledge of the law and the judgement in the courts here are more prudent. That's why most legal actions are constrained.
[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.
Believe no Singaporean would ever think of taking on the state agency, let alone win the case, in similar incident. -
Originally posted by hloc:
Huh?
M13 seems to be unable to understand my question to HF......
HF claims that he had 'prove' that a person in a traffic accident which involve with the damage of a tree.... is made to repay Npark for the damage tree.....
The little post M13 did shows only the [b]insurance company refusing to paid to repair the damage..... what had it to do with Npark asking the driver to pay
and also......
The 'red' part said "wilfully or negligently" & "knowingly"...... where did it said that even if you were involve in an accident, you would have to pay for the damage
And M13..... do grow up.... even with my scuba diving trips .... I still make more sense than you. Sadly that last doctor appointment didn't help you much..... [/b]
The post about the red car was not even related to your and Hyperfocal's discussion. If you need me to point it out to you at point blank. I merely wanted others to know that there was another case where falling trees damaged cars.
You should understand the meaning of "negligent" before making any further comments. If you don't understand the statment,
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.
then perhaps you should consult someone with a superior knowledge of English than you or a legal person. I know the complexities of the legal language and it's construction, a layperson like you would most likely misconstrue it's meaning in the opposite way.
Negligent:
1. Characterized by or inclined to neglect, especially habitually.
2. Characterized by careless ease or informality; casual.
3. Law Guilty of negligence.
negli·gent·ly adv.
Synonyms: negligent, derelict, lax, neglectful, remiss, slack1
These adjectives mean guilty of a lack of due care or concern: an accident caused by a negligent driver; was derelict in his civic responsibilities; lax in attending classes; neglectful of her own financial security; remiss of you not to pay your bill; slack in maintaining discipline.
You mean to say that when a car accident occurs between 2 parties, none of the party is negligent? If you follow a car too close, the car infront emergency braked, you collide to the rear of the car. Isn't it your negligence of not following a proper distance that resulted in the accident? If the traffic light turns red, but still you insisted on beating the redlight, traffic from the side collides with you. Isn't it your negligence of not following proper traffic signals that resulted in the accident.
By law all vehicles in the UK must be insured and it's the insurance company who has to pay compensation if liability is established. Every driver owes what's called a 'duty of care' to other road users and damages will be awarded if you can prove negligence on their part; this could be anything from overtaking on the inside to driving through a red light.
Source: http://www.claims-line-direct.co.uk/car-accident.asp
Wilfully means intentional, whereas negligent means failure to exercise proper due care.
My advice to you regarding your SCUBA diving is a matter of concern, that you are making a mockery of most of your post. You are not making much sense from your points. To further prevent the other readers from harm, I merely suggested that maybe you should think about continuing with SCUBA diving, afterall there are scientific proof that increased pressure will affect your neurons. I am merely making a statement of fact. -
Yah. Agree.Originally posted by pearlie27:Believe no Singaporean would ever think of taking on the state agency, let alone win the case, in similar incident.
I only know of 2 in this thread who would prove otherwise and pursue a claim. -
actually i find it quite funny that they are called "nparks trees' cos.. err.. nparks just an agency who helps to monitor the trees .. ultimately trees are taxpayer's u know... cos we paid for them ma...
so essentially its our own trees wor.... -
i don't know how old are the trees along Jurong West St 41/51 but if they are 40 or 50 years old then they are not considered old.Originally posted by qpicanto:Most of the aging trees are planted about the same time, eg those along jurong west st 41/51 or long bt timah road stretch., you can see they are very old but still standing, it take only a sudden burst of wind of to fell them. As they get older the frequency of such accidents will increase, the day will come when several trees will collapse on the same time if still they think the aging trees are more precious than that of human lives.
Btw, old age is usually not the cause for trees to break off or being uprooted cos as trees aged they become stronger. There are many factors for trees to give way some being physical changes in the surrounding, lighting and exceptionally strong winds. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Thxs for explaining the meaning of Negligent...... as in - "the doctor was Negligent in not tell me my abnormal hate for the Govt is causing me to find fault with everything...... "
Negligent:
1. Characterized by or inclined to neglect, especially habitually.
2. Characterized by careless ease or informality; casual.
3. Law Guilty of negligence.
negli·gent·ly adv.
Synonyms: negligent, derelict, lax, neglectful, remiss, slack1
These adjectives mean guilty of a lack of due care or concern: an accident caused by a negligent driver; was derelict in his civic responsibilities; lax in attending classes; neglectful of her own financial security; remiss of you not to pay your bill; slack in maintaining discipline.
Again..... we are looking for CASES of someone being fine.
Negligent could as means when doing your job as when a few years back.... a contracter chopped down a Tree that was not marked by Npark to be removed.
By the way..... this is S'pore, NOT UK. You could quote UK or other foregin Law & Ruling as much as you like...... but that doesn't change the fact that the law here is difference..... -
double post......
-
not only old trees.. young trees will oso topple over easily or break during storms or strong winds.. we cannot control broken tree branches n the toppling of the trees even if the govt or wadsoeva is gona trim their branches because ......
1. Wet soil due to the rain reduces the ability of the root system to anchor the tree and high winds in such situations are more readily able to cause toppling.. ( dun tell me those ppl can control the climate in sg ) so no matter how u trim oso useless.. accidents are bound to happen
2. Trees infected with root rot diseases (which are commonly associated wif wet conditions) are oso more susceptible to topplin in heavy winds..
generally.. extent of dmg depends on soil type and wind speeds.. so if u wana blame sum1.. go blame the climate in sg instead.. thus NPB will not compensate
and u duno whether the tree tat had been toppled over is a native or a non native tree.. non native trees has low storm resistance...their low storm resistance causes these trees to break and split more easily..
so TS.. if u really wan to reduce such things from happening again.. u shud go write to NPB, ask dem to grow more native trees in sg -.-
so conclusion is.. u duno whether is due to climate or negligence of NPB tat causes the tree/branches to topple over.. jus because of this i dun tink NPB will compensate the victims.. an apology ? maybe.. try ur luck zz -
Originally posted by hloc:
I don't think Hyperfocal has so much leisurely time to go over the library, scan thru all the microfilms to prove to some of the daft people here, not like there is money to be made here.
Thxs for explaining the meaning of [b]Negligent...... as in - "the doctor was Negligent in not tell me my abnormal hate for the Govt is causing me to find fault with everything...... "
Again..... we are looking for CASES of someone being fine.
Negligent could as means when doing your job as when a few years back.... a contracter chopped down a Tree that was not marked by Npark to be removed.
By the way..... this is S'pore, NOT UK. You could quote UK or other foregin Law & Ruling as much as you like...... but that doesn't change the fact that the law here is difference..... [/b]
So a man driving negligently causing his car to bring down a tree is not negligent?
But a contractor negligently chopping down a tree is.
Huh? Doesn't Singapore apply common law procedure, a law based on legal precedence.
If cases in UK don't have a persuasive value in Singapore Courts, then I guess all the lawyers (in your opinion must be daft) to quote UK, Malaysian & Australian cases in their legal arguments in court. Attached below are some cases heard in the Subordinate Court and Supreme Court in Singapore.
Puhleaze........You are already stupid, don't make those young and impressionable here to adopt your kind of mentality towards life in general.
Do continue your incessant ranting like a loon, I enjoy pwning you.
Like I proved to you in another previous post, SCUBA diving does contribute to mental retardation, effects of hyperbarics.
FYI,
ALL E.R. = All England Law Reports
HKLR = Hong Kong Law Reports
Cr App R = Criminal Appeal Reports (UK)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation
-
Jan 18, 2008
NParks searching for tree in crash
A DAY after a 2m branch crashed straight through a woman's windscreen as she drove along Bedok South Road, narrowly missing her, the authorities took her back to the spot - to look for the tree in question.
To get to the bottom of how it happened, National Parks Board (NParks) officers took the driver, Madam Jenny Yeh, 47, tree-hunting along the road yesterday.
NParks Section Head of Parks Kenny Khoo examined the 10m- to 12m-tall rain trees along the stretch, but Madam Yeh could not pin down the exact tree from which the branch had plunged into the car.
His officers will inspect the trees although, at first glance, they seemed healthy, he added.
Trees along expressways and heritage roads are inspected once a year, said NParks.
This is done once in 18 months for those along major roads and once in two years for those along minor roads or streets with less traffic.
NParks said on Monday and Tuesday , it received reports of seven cases of fallen branches.
Botanist Hugh Tan told The Straits Times that while rain trees are strong, their branches spread quite far out from the trunk.
Associate Professor Tan, deputy director of the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research in the National University of Singapore, said in the case of a diseased or dead branch, fungi would have affected it, weakening the limb.
But even healthy trees are not immune, he said.
'A branch is like a sail. With a certain amount of water and wind pressure, there is a net weight. And if the branch cannot bear the load, it will break.'
TRACY SUA
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_197420.html
Quite fantastic, don't you think. Such a big piece of branch and they can't find the branch or the tree that the branch broke from. Maybe the event didn't happen, it was just a figment of her imagination. -
NParks has 766 staff.
If each staff can inspect 10 trees a day, in 6 months they would have inspected 984,857 trees (approx. 1 million trees).
Do we have more than 1 million trees in the public areas?
-
Can we just agree that after all this research, no one can bring up a case study where an accident occured which damaged a tree, and the driver was made to pay for the damage of the tree?
Because rhetorics and foreign laws aside, this was what started the sub debate. And Hyperfocal was the one who said he's looking for it, so let's wait for that to materialise. -
You willing to pay for my time access to Lawnet?Originally posted by deathbait:Can we just agree that after all this research, no one can bring up a case study where an accident occured which damaged a tree, and the driver was made to pay for the damage of the tree?
Because rhetorics and foreign laws aside, this was what started the sub debate. And Hyperfocal was the one who said he's looking for it, so let's wait for that to materialise.
I will be willing to take time out to search for a case.
Don't expect me to pay for something you requested due to your ignorance.
All of Singapore's case files are not easily accessible.
I remembered reading such a case where a motorist was ordered to pay for the cost of the tree, it was quite some time ago. I haven't been buying the Straits Time for a long long time, due to it's propaganda content. -
A tree is also public property, it takes time and money grow the tree.
Surely you don't expect the NParks to be paying for another motorist negligence. Which is nonsensical. Trees cost money to plant and maintain.
You of all people should know that nothing in Singapore is free.
Of the 3,000 trees on the site, one third are earmarked for conservation.
The trees that make the cut will be pruned and packed off to a temporary nursery - about 1.5 times the size of a football field – located nearby.
So far one hundred trees have been transplanted and over the next few weeks Resorts World at Sentosa will transplant 200 more.
The trees will be replanted at the resort when construction is complete.
It will cost about S$400,000 (US$259,000) to maintain the trees over three years.
This is three times the price of buying new nursery stock.
Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/281948/1/.html -
I'm going to sound a little rude here, but the fact of the matter is, no one really asked you to go around digging. Hyperfocal volunteered, and I'm still waiting for his results.Originally posted by maurizio13:You willing to pay for my time access to Lawnet?
I will be willing to take time out to search for a case.
Don't expect me to pay for something you requested due to your ignorance.
All of Singapore's case files are not easily accessible.
I remembered reading such a case where a motorist was ordered to pay for the cost of the tree, it was quite some time ago. I haven't been buying the Straits Time for a long long time, due to it's propaganda content.
Memories serve their purpose, but have no place in a discussion where proof is vounteered. Until Hyperfocal gets back here with the articles in question, there is no need for you to come up with excuses for the inability to provide documents. -
One word.
Suay.
Then that time the lightning hit one tree and killed a passerby?
blame the tree??
or the lightning??
or NPB?
or NEA??
One word nia.
Suay. -
Wow, so much has been said.
I can only come to a conclusion that it has all been about the money for M13. What with his over-quoting and irrelevant data, it only proves how much free time and motivation he has to prove an otherwise lost case, despite not being paid. -
If you say so.Originally posted by newcomer:Wow, so much has been said.
I can only come to a conclusion that it has all been about the money for M13. What with his over-quoting and irrelevant data, it only proves how much free time and motivation he has to prove an otherwise lost case, despite not being paid.
You are entitled to your own opinion based on your level of intelligence. -
CLOSE CALL FOR DRIVER ON THOMSON ROAD
FALLING BRANCH SLAMS INTO MOVING TRUCK
By Kor Kian Beng
February 18, 2008
DRIVING his freezer truck along Thomson Road was an everyday event - until part of a tree came smashing through his windscreen yesterday afternoon.
A piece of theaction: Driver Mohamed Nazir Abdul Aziz (far right) and his assistant, MrNadarajah Ganesalingam, holding the piece of tree branch that crashed into their truck.
In a flash, Mr Mohamed Nazir Abdul Aziz's face and body were covered with glass shards.Despite the shock, the 30-year-old was able to keep in control of the truck and avoid hitting nearby vehicles.
He managed to stop the truck 20m down the road.
Mr Mohamed Nazir said he was driving on the left-most lane along Thomson Road, heading for the Pan Island Expressway exit, to deliver perishable goods to Changi Airport.
Shortly after he passed an Electronic Road Pricing gantry, a thick, 1m-long tree branch crashed onto the truck.
A small part of the branch broke and smashed through the windscreen.
It hit Mr Mohamed Nazir's assistant Mr Nadarajah Ganesalingam, 50, in the chest, leaving him with some bruises and cuts.
Mr Nadarajah also had trouble seeing after some pieces of glass flew into his eyes.
The accident happened at around 1.30pm, at the stretch of road opposite the flower nurseries.
When The New Paper on Sunday arrived at the scene an hour later, both driver and assistant still looked shaken.
The front part of the truck was partly dented, and glass shards could be seen inside and outside the vehicle.
A long trail of debris and tyre marks could be seen on the road.
Mr Mohamed Nazir, who has speech and hearing problems, spoke through his supervisor, who wished to be known only as Melvin.
The supervisor arrived at the scene after the workers called him.
LUCKY
Mr Mohamed Nazir said he was lucky that the larger part of the tree branch had slammed onto the front of the truck and not onto him.
He said through his supervisor: 'The truck's body saved my life.
'I'd have been seriously injured if that had happened.'
The driver also said he was lucky that he managed to keep control of the vehicle.
Just before impact, two cars were travelling ahead of him and a truck was on his right, he recalled.
Mr Nadarajah said everything happened very quickly.
At around 3pm, a police car and an ambulance arrived to take both victims to the hospital.
A replacement truck was arranged by the supervisor to continue the delivery of the goods. The damaged truck was towed away.
The supervisor said his two workers and the truck are covered under personal and vehicle insurance respectively.
However, he said he was unsure if his company could make an insurance claim with the relevant government agencies.