Duty of Care by site owners

[Steve_5078021]

How are you all on the Law?

Whilst manoevering around a site in Weymouth this summer trying to find a pitch, my Status aerial was savagely ripped off by a very low hanging branch from a conifer, angered by this I took it up with the site owner whose response was 'trees is trees sir'.

I argued that he had a duty of care to ensure any low hanging branches were removed (in this case about three branches without significant impact on the tree itself) and it was not unreasonable to expect a caravan to enjoy sufficient headroom on a CARAVAN SITE! At the least, I postulated, there should be notices warning of low branches (he had no difficulty posting notices on the tree announcing the bar opening times) All this was to no avail he had no insurance I could claim on and only suggested I should claim on my own insurance which carries an excess and would not be cost effective.

Would love to hear of similar experiences or cases where anyone has achieved retribution in some way.

 

[Tony A.]

how many more damaged vans were there on site? there has to be others, otherwise the owner could argue that everyone else saw and negotiated the low branches and you were being unobservent

or driving without due care and attention

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Steve,

I am sorry to read of the damage to your caravan.

If you believe the site owner could have easily for seen the potential for his trees to do damage to a caravan being manoeuvred in a reasonable way, then speak to your solicitor for detailed guidance. It may be that a small claims summons may recover your costs.

You could also speak to your insurance company. Do not forget that you have purchased insurance cover, and as such the company does have to listen to you. You could ask that they attempt recover your damages and claim costs directly from the site owner.

The fact that a site owner does not have insurance is not relevant. If he is negligent he cannot absolve himself simply be not taking out insurance. More fool him, as he personally becomes responsible to pay any claim placed against him. Trading Standards may also have an issue with him for not carrying public liability cover.

 

[WatsonJohnG]

It seems inconceivable that site registration/licensing does not require insurance cover.A site owner without insurance in these litigious times could find himself bankrupt without insurance.

A Solicitor's letter might find that he does have insurance but that he is more concerned that making a claim could increase next year's premium

 

[RogerL_5041474]

Surely YOU as driver have a duty of care to know the height of your outfit and not drive under anything below that height!

 

[WatsonJohnG]

Surely YOU as driver have a duty of care to know the height of your outfit and not drive under anything below that height!

Good point

 

[Steve_5078021]

Surely YOU as driver have a duty of care to know the height of your outfit and not drive under anything below that height!

Who made you the chairman of the negligent site owners club?

anyway you assume that it is possible to assess the height of every potential obstacle by rack of eye without hight notification warnings in an already stressful situation and after a long drive - we dont expect bus drivers to do this which is why low bridges have height warnings!

 

[Steve_5078021]

Who made you the chairman of the negligent site owners club?

anyway you assume that it is possible to assess the height of every potential obstacle by rack of eye without hight notification warnings in an already stressful situation and after a long drive - we dont expect bus drivers to do this which is why low bridges have height warnings!

Watson(john G)

The last was addressed to RogerL.

 

[CliveV]

Steady on everybody! Two points - the site owners insurance co. (if he has one) would simply say that the driver of the outfit was required to take all due care. If the site owner has no insurance then please let us know which one it is so we can all avoid it! I suspect that there is a notice on the site somewhere that absolves the site from any responcibility for minor incidents like this. Thus you would have to prove that the "management" of said tree was negligent in some way.

Second point, the caravan insurance company could try to recover its costs if it could be proved that the tree was badly maintained and/or projected over a designated "road" on the site - i.e. a towed caravan had little choice but to take that route.

Even if they achieved this, the result at best would probably be a 50:50 claim.

It is very sad that a caravan was damaged and probably a holiday spoilt. But at the end of the day from my knowledge of how Insurance Companies work, I think the responcibility lays with the person driving the car.

After all the tree is a fairly imovable object. If you are towing something the onus is on you to be aware of its size.

 

[RogerL_5041474]

Who made you the chairman of the negligent site owners club?

anyway you assume that it is possible to assess the height of every potential obstacle by rack of eye without hight notification warnings in an already stressful situation and after a long drive - we dont expect bus drivers to do this which is why low bridges have height warnings!

Steve, a bus driver would still be negligent if the sign was removed or obscured.

If you can't judge the height of your outfit in comparison to a tree how do you judge the width of a gap in relation to your car? Do you just assume that other drivers will leave you enough room and that they are negligent if you hit them?

The driver of any vehicle has to take full responsibility when moving anywhere.

Let me know what your outfit is and where you live so that I can avoid you!