East Texas, ya say? Why not just move your trailer further from the tree?

(I kid, I kid. I have a bunch of east Texas redneck relatives.)

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a known nuisance and danger, and if you know it is a nuisance and danger you can't use the "well, I had no clue" defense.

---

That's the thing: it isn't necessarily a KNOWN nuisance and/or danger. A pool with open access IS. Different situations entirely.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument here. I'm simply saying that, based on the information presented, I don't see an affirmative duty on the part of the tree owner to cut it down. Absent that, it will be very difficult to get him to do it if he doesn't want to.

---

If that is the case, how can insurance companies declare it to be and refuse coverage if a dead tree on your property falls on your house.

Unless there is some civil case law to back up your claim, I have doubts. If I'm on a jury, he's getting paid.

Based on the epic ******* nature of the neighbor and legal advice from the thread that I'm pretty sure has no actual attorneys, I'm going to change my advice for course of action. To hell with paying to have it cut down on his behalf.

Watch the weather, wait until he leaves, and stick your Stihl through the fence picket and cut a Kerf on the north side of the tree. Wait for the next norther...problem solved.

Oh...make sure you're solid on cardinal directions, physics, error probabilities, and of course where you home lies in relation to the above.


On a serious note, as a person that cuts tens of trees down and up on my property annually, I can say you don't need a ****ing forestry degree to figure out that PINE is a danger when dead. That tree is a danger and I'd try again for a certified letter so that I could promptly get paid when it falls on my **** or kills someone. Pine is a trash tree. It's weak and brittle when alive and it rots fast. Tell your dip**** neighbor that pressure treated pine doesn't grow naturally. He's a deadbeat bum and If I'm on a jury, the op is getting paid to whatever extent I can squeeze from cousin eddy over there.

It's worse than a pool. It's more like a time bomb with an iffy fuse. But, Like a pool that has fences and locks to mitigate risk, that tree needs to go.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a known nuisance and danger, and if you know it is a nuisance and danger you can't use the "well, I had no clue" defense.

---

That's the thing: it isn't necessarily a KNOWN nuisance and/or danger. A pool with open access IS. Different situations entirely.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument here. I'm simply saying that, based on the information presented, I don't see an affirmative duty on the part of the tree owner to cut it down. Absent that, it will be very difficult to get him to do it if he doesn't want to.

---

Sorry man, a dead tree is a known nuisance and danger. Why? Because we literally have all of history as an example of dead trees falling over and basic common sense that something weighing thousands of pounds falling is going to cause damage. I'm betting you can get somebody well versed in physics to calculate the potential energy stored in that tree and what it will do upon impact. Especially after you have been notified of it. I can understand if you as the homeowner may not know initially, but if you have been notified of it - you lose the "play stupid" defense IMO.

Like others have said - if I'm on a jury, the OP is getting paid as a result of what I'm going to view a willful negligence of the property owner for failing to address a very obvious and glaring issue.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Based on the epic ******* nature of the neighbor and legal advice from the thread that I'm pretty sure has no actual attorneys, I'm going to change my advice for course of action. To hell with paying to have it cut down on his behalf.

Watch the weather, wait until he leaves, and stick your Stihl through the fence picket and cut a Kerf on the north side of the tree. Wait for the next norther...problem solved.

Oh...make sure you're solid on cardinal directions, physics, error probabilities, and of course where you home lies in relation to the above.


On a serious note, as a person that cuts tens of trees down and up on my property annually, I can say you don't need a ****ing forestry degree to figure out that PINE is a danger when dead. That tree is a danger and I'd try again for a certified letter so that I could promptly get paid when it falls on my **** or kills someone. Pine is a trash tree. It's weak and brittle when alive and it rots fast. Tell your dip**** neighbor that pressure treated pine doesn't grow naturally. He's a deadbeat bum and If I'm on a jury, the op is getting paid to whatever extent I can squeeze from cousin eddy over there.

It's worse than a pool. It's more like a time bomb with an iffy fuse. But, Like a pool that has fences and locks to mitigate risk, that tree needs to go.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here (See what I did there) and suggest that the guy posting as Aggielawyer91 is an attorney, but nobody want's to listen to his advice if it doesn't involve Dynomite and sweet revenge.

Actually if the tree is assessed as hazardous by a trained professional (certified Arborist or Master Arborist) it becomes a known issue then and should the tree cause damage after the owner is made aware they can and are held liable. Why do you think Arborists and master Arborists are called into court to testify on a regular basis.

Nothing to add here but:

Nah, we are the aggies, the aggies are we.... get me a tree lean indicator and a squirrel.

He has done that a few times.

Mtn_Guide said:

---

Nothing to add here but:

---

Sheryl is definitely getting a new she shed.

That is actually the video i was thinking of but had to settle for the otherGIF. That was a choice fell.