NParks trees pierced through car windscreen, no APOLOGY !

last SG · 2008-01-17T11:11:49+00:00

i recalled a similar incident last year. a tree branch fell on a car at potong pasir, ah seng blamed chiam see tong's town council of not doing their job ma...

oxford mushroom SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

[b]Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.

10. (1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.

(2) No person shall

(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or

(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to

(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;

(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and

(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.

[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25]
[/b]

Looks like the moronic maurizio is bent on displaying his ignorance again. This piece of legislation deals with wilful destruction, not damage in the event of an accident. Looks like he needs to return to school for some instruction in basic English Comprehension.

lionnoisy SG

NPB have to strike a balance of keeping trees and cut trees with
potential risks.Do not force them to cut too much.

It is Act of God!!

phil30k SG

Dear maurizio13

The example you brought up was very interesting.

I don't think the fact that he parked illegally makes him jointly liable. The precedent you posted earlier would seem to bear this out.

He should report them to CASE.

phil30k SG

Claims against Insurance follows contract law.

Claims against another party where no contract exists follow the law of tort.

Claims (fines) by the Government follows the legislation.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Looks like the moronic maurizio is bent on displaying his ignorance again. This piece of legislation deals with [b]wilful destruction, not damage in the event of an accident. Looks like he needs to return to school for some instruction in basic English Comprehension.[/b]

Seems like somebody here has a problem understanding "No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical". Time to take some good old English while you are in the UK now. This is kinda hard to believe coming from a person of your calibre. An accident will occur when either one party is negligent, failed to maintain ensure due care when switching lanes, failed to keep proper distance from the car in front, etc. One party of a motor vehicle will most need to prove the negligence of the other party, in order for him to pursue his claim for damages.

Seriously, the standard of your English is appalling despite you being in the UK. Just some personal advice you should get yourself more indemnity insurance for malpractice.

maurizio13 SG

Force majeure (French for "greater force") is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as war, strike, riot, crime, act of nature (e.g., flooding, earthquake, volcano), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure

If your definition of storm being an Act of God were true, then it would be a very sad day for alot of insurance contracts.

Meaning, if there were ever a storm and motorist gets involved in accidents, they won't be able to process any insurance claim, due to your fallacious definition of "Act of God" (aka force majeure). Most (or almost all) insurance contracts exclude claims for Act of God, if you don't understand already.

deathbait SG

yes

And I would like a case study to close the book on this.
Still waiting on yours hyperfocal. If i recall, you were looking for one.

HyperFocal SG

.. correction; awaiting an email copy of what transpired in an accident...
.. as well as Npark's email on Compensation for damaged tree/s...

maurizio13 SG

Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.

10. (1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.

(2) No person shall

(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or

(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to

(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;

(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and

(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.

[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25]

deathbait SG

In that case, I wait with bated breath

hloc SG

M13 seems to be unable to understand my question to HF......

HF claims that he had 'prove' that a person in a traffic accident which involve with the damage of a tree.... is made to repay Npark for the damage tree.....

The little post M13 did shows only the insurance company refusing to paid to repair the damage..... what had it to do with Npark asking the driver to pay Question

and also......

Destruction, damage, etc., of notices, boundary marks, etc.

10. (1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.

(2) No person shall

(a) destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any notice or other sign erected by or on behalf of the Board within any national park or nature reserve; or

(b) knowingly destroy, damage, deface, alter or remove any boundary mark within any national park or nature reserve.

(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to

(a) the Commissioner, an authorised officer or a park ranger acting in the performance of his duty under this Act;

(b) any other officer or employee of the Board acting in the performance of his duty under this Act or any other written law; and

(c) any police officer or workman assisting a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to carry out his duty.

[National Parks 1997 Ed., s. 25]

The 'red' part said "wilfully or negligently" & "knowingly"...... where did it said that even if you were involve in an accident, you would have to pay for the damage Question

And M13..... do grow up.... even with my scuba diving trips .... I still make more sense than you. Sadly that last doctor appointment didn't help you much.....

pearlie27 SG

[quote]Originally posted by maurizio13:

Most Singaporeans have little knowledge of the law and the judgement in the courts here are more prudent. That's why most legal actions are constrained.

[b]Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough

Brief Fact Summary
Plaintiff was running his car on borough street in a violent wind storm. As he passed under a tree, it was blown down crushing the roof of his car and causing him serious injury. Plaintiff was running his car in excess of the speed limit as permitted by a borough ordinance.

Rule of Law and Holding
Plaintiff's rate of speed did not cause or contribute to the harm that he suffered. His actions did not increase the foreseeable likelihood that a tree would fall on his car. It cannot be said that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Thus, Plaintiff's recovery is sustained.

Believe no Singaporean would ever think of taking on the state agency, let alone win the case, in similar incident.

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by hloc:
M13 seems to be unable to understand my question to HF......

HF claims that he had 'prove' that a person in a traffic accident which involve with the damage of a tree.... is made to repay Npark for the damage tree.....

The little post M13 did shows only the [b]insurance company refusing to paid to repair the damage..... what had it to do with Npark asking the driver to pay Question

and also......

The 'red' part said "wilfully or negligently" & "knowingly"...... where did it said that even if you were involve in an accident, you would have to pay for the damage

And M13..... do grow up.... even with my scuba diving trips .... I still make more sense than you. Sadly that last doctor appointment didn't help you much..... [/b]

Huh?

The post about the red car was not even related to your and Hyperfocal's discussion. If you need me to point it out to you at point blank. I merely wanted others to know that there was another case where falling trees damaged cars. Very Happy

You should understand the meaning of "negligent" before making any further comments. If you don't understand the statment,

10. (1) No person shall wilfully or negligently destroy, damage or deface any object of zoological, botanical, geological, ethnological, scientific or aesthetic interest within any national park or nature reserve.

then perhaps you should consult someone with a superior knowledge of English than you or a legal person. I know the complexities of the legal language and it's construction, a layperson like you would most likely misconstrue it's meaning in the opposite way.

Negligent:

1. Characterized by or inclined to neglect, especially habitually.
2. Characterized by careless ease or informality; casual.
3. Law Guilty of negligence.

negli·gent·ly adv.
Synonyms: negligent, derelict, lax, neglectful, remiss, slack1
These adjectives mean guilty of a lack of due care or concern: an accident caused by a negligent driver; was derelict in his civic responsibilities; lax in attending classes; neglectful of her own financial security; remiss of you not to pay your bill; slack in maintaining discipline.

You mean to say that when a car accident occurs between 2 parties, none of the party is negligent? If you follow a car too close, the car infront emergency braked, you collide to the rear of the car. Isn't it your negligence of not following a proper distance that resulted in the accident? If the traffic light turns red, but still you insisted on beating the redlight, traffic from the side collides with you. Isn't it your negligence of not following proper traffic signals that resulted in the accident.

By law all vehicles in the UK must be insured and it's the insurance company who has to pay compensation if liability is established. Every driver owes what's called a 'duty of care' to other road users and damages will be awarded if you can prove negligence on their part; this could be anything from overtaking on the inside to driving through a red light.

Source: http://www.claims-line-direct.co.uk/car-accident.asp

Wilfully means intentional, whereas negligent means failure to exercise proper due care.

My advice to you regarding your SCUBA diving is a matter of concern, that you are making a mockery of most of your post. You are not making much sense from your points. To further prevent the other readers from harm, I merely suggested that maybe you should think about continuing with SCUBA diving, afterall there are scientific proof that increased pressure will affect your neurons. I am merely making a statement of fact.

maurizio13 SG

Yah. Agree.

I only know of 2 in this thread who would prove otherwise and pursue a claim.

ShrodingersCat SG

actually i find it quite funny that they are called "nparks trees' cos.. err.. nparks just an agency who helps to monitor the trees .. ultimately trees are taxpayer's u know... cos we paid for them ma...

so essentially its our own trees wor....

pearlie27 SG

i don't know how old are the trees along Jurong West St 41/51 but if they are 40 or 50 years old then they are not considered old.

Btw, old age is usually not the cause for trees to break off or being uprooted cos as trees aged they become stronger. There are many factors for trees to give way some being physical changes in the surrounding, lighting and exceptionally strong winds.

hloc SG

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Negligent:

1. Characterized by or inclined to neglect, especially habitually.
2. Characterized by careless ease or informality; casual.
3. Law Guilty of negligence.

negli·gent·ly adv.
Synonyms: negligent, derelict, lax, neglectful, remiss, slack1
These adjectives mean guilty of a lack of due care or concern: an accident caused by a negligent driver; was derelict in his civic responsibilities; lax in attending classes; neglectful of her own financial security; remiss of you not to pay your bill; slack in maintaining discipline.

Thxs for explaining the meaning of Negligent...... as in - "the doctor was Negligent in not tell me my abnormal hate for the Govt is causing me to find fault with everything...... "

Again..... we are looking for CASES of someone being fine.

Negligent could as means when doing your job as when a few years back.... a contracter chopped down a Tree that was not marked by Npark to be removed.

By the way..... this is S'pore, NOT UK. You could quote UK or other foregin Law & Ruling as much as you like...... but that doesn't change the fact that the law here is difference.....

hloc SG

double post...... Mr. Green

metalcar SG

not only old trees.. young trees will oso topple over easily or break during storms or strong winds.. we cannot control broken tree branches n the toppling of the trees even if the govt or wadsoeva is gona trim their branches because ......

1. Wet soil due to the rain reduces the ability of the root system to anchor the tree and high winds in such situations are more readily able to cause toppling.. ( dun tell me those ppl can control the climate in sg ) so no matter how u trim oso useless.. accidents are bound to happen

2. Trees infected with root rot diseases (which are commonly associated wif wet conditions) are oso more susceptible to topplin in heavy winds..

generally.. extent of dmg depends on soil type and wind speeds.. so if u wana blame sum1.. go blame the climate in sg instead.. thus NPB will not compensate

and u duno whether the tree tat had been toppled over is a native or a non native tree.. non native trees has low storm resistance...their low storm resistance causes these trees to break and split more easily..
so TS.. if u really wan to reduce such things from happening again.. u shud go write to NPB, ask dem to grow more native trees in sg -.-

so conclusion is.. u duno whether is due to climate or negligence of NPB tat causes the tree/branches to topple over.. jus because of this i dun tink NPB will compensate the victims.. an apology ? maybe.. try ur luck zz

maurizio13 SG

Originally posted by hloc:

Thxs for explaining the meaning of [b]Negligent...... as in - "the doctor was Negligent in not tell me my abnormal hate for the Govt is causing me to find fault with everything...... "

Again..... we are looking for CASES of someone being fine.

Negligent could as means when doing your job as when a few years back.... a contracter chopped down a Tree that was not marked by Npark to be removed.

By the way..... this is S'pore, NOT UK. You could quote UK or other foregin Law & Ruling as much as you like...... but that doesn't change the fact that the law here is difference..... [/b]

I don't think Hyperfocal has so much leisurely time to go over the library, scan thru all the microfilms to prove to some of the daft people here, not like there is money to be made here.

So a man driving negligently causing his car to bring down a tree is not negligent? Laughing But a contractor negligently chopping down a tree is.

Huh? Doesn't Singapore apply common law procedure, a law based on legal precedence.

If cases in UK don't have a persuasive value in Singapore Courts, then I guess all the lawyers (in your opinion must be daft) to quote UK, Malaysian & Australian cases in their legal arguments in court. Attached below are some cases heard in the Subordinate Court and Supreme Court in Singapore.

Puhleaze........You are already stupid, don't make those young and impressionable here to adopt your kind of mentality towards life in general.

Do continue your incessant ranting like a loon, I enjoy pwning you. Laughing

Like I proved to you in another previous post, SCUBA diving does contribute to mental retardation, effects of hyperbarics.

FYI,

ALL E.R. = All England Law Reports

HKLR = Hong Kong Law Reports

Cr App R = Criminal Appeal Reports (UK)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

« Previous Page Next Page »