Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Who should pay?

14 replies

guessmyusername · 29/01/2022 09:52

During last night's storm a trampoline was blown in to the street and damaged a car. Should the car owner pay to repair damage or should the owner of the trampoline contribute?

OP posts:
Leah2005 · 29/01/2022 09:58

I think the legal answer is the car owner claims off their insurance. The moral answer is the trampoline owner pays for the repair.

TakeYourFinalPosition · 29/01/2022 09:59

The car owner will be able to claim on their insurance but their insurance company may well contact the owner of the trampoline… was it correctly secured for a storm?

Morally, the trampoline owner should contribute.

jessieminto · 29/01/2022 10:06

I'd expect my home insurance to cough up if my trampoline did that. No idea if it covers that kind of thing though. However I also know ours is secured, as we got a professional to build and secure it for us. So the wind would have to be one of those 'act of god' type scenarios that maybe no insurance will cover. Hmmm it's an interesting one to follow.

Fairylightsongs · 29/01/2022 10:07

That’s an insurance one, both need to speak to their insurers.

prh47bridge · 29/01/2022 11:16

The trampoline owner has a duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure the trampoline is not likely to be blown into the street. If they fail to do this, they have been negligent must pay in full for any damage caused by the trampoline. However, if the trampoline owner has taken reasonable steps and the trampoline is then blown into the street by an exceptional event (an act of God), they are not liable. Personally, I would let insurance sort it out.

guessmyusername · 29/01/2022 15:31

Thank you all. Trampoline owner in rented so no home owners insurance. Not sure if it was secured or not. Moved from rear garden to street (approx 30 feet). We also have 2 fences down that we need to deal with and that neighbour is being really helpful. We are car owners btw

OP posts:
Lellochip · 29/01/2022 15:47

They might well have some liability cover for things like this as part of their contents insurance

LunaAndHerMoonDragons · 29/01/2022 21:49

@guessmyusername

Thank you all. Trampoline owner in rented so no home owners insurance. Not sure if it was secured or not. Moved from rear garden to street (approx 30 feet). We also have 2 fences down that we need to deal with and that neighbour is being really helpful. We are car owners btw
Would the trampoline have blown out if the fences hadn't been pushed over, were the fences inadequately secured or did the trampoline push them over? It would take a massive storm to knock our fences down.
AuntyBumBum · 29/01/2022 21:53

Owner of the trampoline is liable - see the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Asdf12345 · 29/01/2022 21:58

Trampoline owner is probably required by their landlord to have contents cover (we always were when renting which may well cover the trampoline as contents of the garden and third party liability). If they aren’t covered their landlords policy may again cover it.

If the damage to the car was under a couple of hundred quid I would just pay for it for an easy life, beyond that I would ask the trampoline owner to try and claim on their insurance and notify my insurer that I had done so. If the trampoline owner is uninsured then either the car insurer will go after them for the cost (much higher once handling costs are added) or decide they are unlikely to be able to pay, in which case they probably wouldn’t have been able to pay directly either.

First try and get it sorted amicably, and small independent body shops can do tremendous things very cheaply.

Santahasjoinedww · 29/01/2022 22:08

Sue God obviously!!

prh47bridge · 30/01/2022 00:00

@AuntyBumBum

Owner of the trampoline is liable - see the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Rylands is "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land" - House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61. From the same judgement, "I do not think the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied. It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, he ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be."
Tigertigertigertiger · 30/01/2022 00:07

Real life example - my trampoline did exactly this - blew away and bashed a car in the next street.

I paid for the damage

prh47bridge · 30/01/2022 08:44

Most trampolines I have seen in private gardens are not secured. If that is the case, the owner is definitely liable and must pay in full for any damage. However, if it was secured properly but blew away in an exceptional wind, the owner may be able to avoid liability for any damage caused.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread