Who pays when no one is blameworthy?

[SpencerH]

Clearly, Bob is liable for the damage. His actions resulted in Steves loss. Nothing else is relevant.

[Agathon]

Since no negligence occurred on Bob's part, and the seizure, not he, was the cause. It's really no different than if Steve's house had been hit by lightning.

Steve pays.

[SpencerH]

Negligence is irrelevant. Steves house was not hit by lightning, it was destroyed by Bobs tree. If lightning hit Bobs tree and felled it onto Steves house there would also be no negligence but Bob would still have liability since his tree destroyed Steves house.

[Theben]

No question. The actions prior to the seizure taken by Bob resulted in the destruction of Steve's house. Bob pays.

[Arrian]

Bob's homeowners insurance pays, most likely. But yeah, it's Bob's liability.

-Arrian

[Adalbertus]

I think you can even create a case of negligence here. My driving teacher told me that you should fasten the hand brake when you wait at red traffic lights because you might have a stroke and the car might do a jump damaging someone or injuring something. In that case you are also liable.
To avoid those problems, you should have a liability insurance which pays for the damage. I don't know how reliable they are in the US, however.

[Lorizael]

Bob pays - for the multitude of reasons already listed.

[Asher]

That must be one big tree or one small trailer for a tree falling to destroy it.

[Slade Wilson]

The OP stated he cut down the tree himself. The gamble was that he thought he could, by himself, safely fell a tree that was big enough to destroy the nearby house

What your saying is in conflict with the OPs statement that he was well trained ''in the highest standard of chainsaws'' etc etc, and furthermore, rather difficult to say what he was thinking when that wasnt mentioned by the OP. In any case, your basically picking at a loophole in the argument, which would indicate the OPer, not bob, is the one with less chainsaw knowledge. The obvious point trying to be conveyed is that the guy who did it, was an expert.

No question. The actions prior to the seizure taken by Bob resulted in the destruction of Steve's house. Bob pays.

I agree.

[rah]

agreed

In virtually all of the United States, the law says that Bob should pay for Steve's house.

There's a good reason for this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Negligence is irrelevant. Steves house was not hit by lightning, it was destroyed by Bobs tree. If lightning hit Bobs tree and felled it onto Steves house there would also be no negligence but Bob would still have liability since his tree destroyed Steves house.

Anyone who believes that is a lunatic. What if a hurricane picked up Bob's house and slammed it into Steve's house. Or what if the hurricane picked up Bob's tree and hurled it ten blocks into Jane's house. Or what if it was Bob's truck that demolished Steve's house, after some thieves had stolen it and parked it next to Steve's house, and a tornado then picked up the truck and slammed it into Steve's house.

Or what if it was Tim's tree that got hit by the lightning, and Tim's tree knocked over Donna's tree that then knocked over Bob's tree, which demolished Steve's house.

These and other absurdities follow if you try to make people responsible for natural events beyond their control.*

______________________
* One important exception is if Bob had intended to cut down the tree and slam it into Steve's house and did so, but some other event would have made him doing it unavoidable. In that case the event would beyond his control, but he would still be responsible. But those are a tiny minority of cases.

[Arrian]

Anyone who believes that is a lunatic

No.

What if a hurricane picked up Bob's house and slammed it into Steve's house. Or what if the hurricane picked up Bob's tree and hurled it ten blocks into Jane's house. Or what if it was Bob's truck that demolished Steve's house, after some thieves had stolen it and parked it next to Steve's house, and a tornado then picked up the truck and slammed it into Steve's house.

Steve's insurance pays (and Bob's pays for his house/truck). "Act of God" and all that.

In the example in the OP, you had the convergence of an "act of God" (the siezure) and an intentional act (cutting down a tree) that carries with it some inherent risk of accident. Your hurricane/tornado analogies don't fit.

-Arrian

[Slade Wilson]

These and other absurdities follow if you try to make people responsible for natural events beyond their control.*

The tree falling on the house was a direct consequence of bobs actions. It would not have happened(or not at that time) if he hadnt cut the tree down.

Anyone who believes that is a lunatic

In this scenario bob is definitely liable according to the law as i understand it(and i see people lose cases like this all the time). This is a reason why we have left a tree in the backyard positioned on the property line that is ready to come down, instead of taking care of it. If it falls down of its own accord, anything it does is not our fault. If we so much as touch it and it falls down and crushes something, well....

[David Floyd]

Agathon, also, why change the debate? We aren't talking about a hurricane or a thief, we are talking about someone who decides that he is going to take it upon himself to cut down an obviously huge tree, in his front yard, with a chainsaw. During the process of doing so, the tree falls on his neighbor's house. Those are the relevant facts. Bob could have avoided risk by a)not cutting down the tree, or b)hiring a professional with liability insurance to do so. The fact that he chose to cut down the tree himself means that he is liable for the resuts of that action - heart attack or not.

[Japher]

Whoever planted the tree should have know that Bob wouldn't want it there one day. However, Bob shouldn't have waited until after his stroke before starting to cut the tree down, or done it well before the stroke. IMO, this poor planning on Bob's part, and he is totally to blame.