So here’s the situation: a close friend and I were cutting down trees in my backyard. He decided to climb one of the trees and use a chainsaw to cut a part of it. Unfortunately, a limb broke and hit him in the face, breaking his jaw. I had advised him against doing it and offered to hire someone else since it seemed risky, but he chose to do it anyway.
After the accident, I spoke to my insurance agent, who assured me that even if my friend decided to sue, he wouldn’t have much of a case since it was his own decision to climb the tree. Now, several months later, my friend told me he feels he has no choice but to sue. My agent still thinks they’d have to prove negligence on my part, which I don’t believe applies here.
This whole situation is really unsettling. What should I expect moving forward? Appreciate any advice!
Your insurance agent is right. For you to be liable, there’d need to be evidence of negligence. From what you described, it doesn’t sound like you were negligent at all.
Blane said:
Your insurance agent is right. For you to be liable, there’d need to be evidence of negligence. From what you described, it doesn’t sound like you were negligent at all.
Does it make any difference if he’s only looking to cover medical bills?
Blane said: @Ansel
No, liability is liability. The requirement for proving negligence wouldn’t change just because he’s looking for medical bill coverage.
Blane said:
Your insurance agent is right. For you to be liable, there’d need to be evidence of negligence. From what you described, it doesn’t sound like you were negligent at all.
One more thing—if it’s clear there’s no negligence, why would a lawyer even take his case?