Who pays when no one is blameworthy?

[Vesayen]

If this sounds like homework, this is something I studied as an undergrad, years ago. I was thinking about it recently and thought it would make a good thread topic. Writting this hypothetical up myself now.

Bob is in his backyard and using a chainsaw to cut down a tree in his yard. Bob is using a chainsaw that he takes very good care of. Bob has experience in using a chainsaw. Bob has experience and has taken classes in the proper way to cut down trees. Bob has the highest standard of knowledge for the use of chainsaws and cutting down trees and is doing so in the safest possible manner. He is being VERY VERY careful to ensure the tree falls in the right direction, into his yard and not, onto the house of his neighbor Steve.

Bob has no familly history of heart attacks, siezures or any serious health problems etc. Bob is in good health. Bob regularly goes to a qualified physician.

While Bob is cutting down the tree, he has a siezure and his chainsaw slips, he makes a bad cut and the tree falls in the wrong direction. It falls onto his neighbor Steve's house. Steve's house is destroyed. Bob recovers from his siezure and calls an ambulance then rushes to see if anyone in Steve's house is hurt.

It would be safe to say most people would agree Bob is blameless, he did not do anything wrong, yet he was instrumental in causing harm to someone else. Who should suffer the cost of fixing Steve's house? The person who caused the harm? Bob is not blameworthy, he did nothing wrong. Should Steve accept the loss and have to pay to fix his house? Steve is utterly blameless and did nothing to deserve his house being crushed.

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

Do you think that is fair? I defy a poster to come up with a fair resolution besides Bob paying for fixing Steve's house, I will be impressed if anyone comes up with a fair alternative.

[SlowwHand]

Home owner's insurance.

[Zevico]

Well, it's an exercise in loss-shifting. You can shift it to Bob, Steve, or the community. I suppose compulsory third party accident insurance could do shift losses to the community as a whole.

[Darius871]

It depends; what are the respective ethnicities of Steve and Bob?

[Verto]

The blame falls on whoever has the deepest pockets. This is America, after all.

[David Floyd]

Why shouldn't Bob pay? Cutting down a tree with a chain-saw is an inherently high risk activity, especially in a residential neighborhood. This shouldn't even be a big deal - Bob pays, period. He can cry about it not being his fault, but I guess the lesson learned is to shift liability by having a 3rd party do it next time.

If I have a heart attack while driving, should I (or my insurance) not be responsible if I hit a parked car, for example?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Darius871
It depends; what are the respective ethnicities of Steve and Bob?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Home owner's insurance.

I mostly agree with this, but would also point out that he should have hired a professional tree service to come in instead of him doing it himself. They have liability coverage that would pay for this sort of thing and as such would be more likely NOT to screw up like this because they have a more methodical approach than just making a few notches in the trunk and hoping the tree falls in the right direction. On our street we used to have cottonwoods and over the years the neighbors have had them cut down. All used one professional tree service or another to do it. Some of those cottonwoods were easily 4 stories high or taller with no where to fall safely; they had to be chopped down in pieces. Bob's hypothetical tree sounds to be in the same category as those cottonwoods if it's big enough to demolish Steve's house. Bob's insurance should pay since he gambled that he knew better than a professional tree service ... and lost.

[Slade Wilson]

Originally posted by Verto
The blame falls on whoever has the deepest pockets. This is America, after all.

I think you mean the least deepest pockets, as those with deep pockets win lawsuits

[Slade Wilson]

Bob's insurance should pay since he gambled that he knew better than a professional tree service ... and lost

Bob has experience and has taken classes in the proper way to cut down trees. Bob has the highest standard of knowledge for the use of chainsaws and cutting down trees and is doing so in the safest possible manner.

Where in the OP is he gambling again?

"Professionals" are not the only people who cut trees down in sections, you know.

[Elok]

Eh. Probably Steve should pay. An occurrence this freakish is comparable to an Act of God, as though lightning had struck the tree. If that doesn't satisfy you, perhaps they could split the cost?

[b etor]

[Imran Siddiqui]

You've come to the right place with this question. At Poly, no one acts like they are blameworthy.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Elok
Eh. Probably Steve should pay. An occurrence this freakish is comparable to an Act of God, as though lightning had struck the tree. If that doesn't satisfy you, perhaps they could split the cost?

Then God should pay

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
Where in the OP is he gambling again?

"Professionals" are not the only people who cut trees down in sections, you know.

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. His sudden seizure has little to do with the gamble: Steve could have been there helping Bob when this happened and it wouldn't have prevented Bob from having a seizure, making a bad cut and felling the tree right on top of Steve's house. As I already pointed out, "professionals" have additional legal/financial safeguards in the event of an accident (property damage or personal injury/death) that regular homeowner's may or may not have, never mind that there may be state and federal safety codes and required procedures/protocols businesses need follow designed to prevent or at least greatly mitigate the possibility of such a thing happening. Also, the scenario described in the OP implies Bob was cutting at the trunk of the tree, not the branches. Falling branches won't destroy a house, felling large whole trees or huge trunks (like the 4-5 story tall cottonwoods I mentioned) stripped of their branches will. When the cottonwoods were taken down, the companies had small cranes there for each section they removed from the top on down.