[BoboStin]

Originally posted by 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? David Floyd's post in very insightful.

Normally, to hold Bob liable, he would have had to have acted negligently. We had a case in one of my courtrooms, in which a driver had an epileptic seizure (he had no history of epilepsy) and smashed into someone else's car. The decision: no negligent conduct = no liablity, And the innocent driver of the other car had to bear his own expenses.

There is a situation called "untrahazardous activity" when the actor is liable even without negligence. Examples are keeping a wild animal (e.g. tiger) or storing explosives. In these instances, if the activity causes an injury -- even if there's no neligence -- the actor is liable.

I do not know if using a chain saw has ever been held in a court of law to be an ultrahazardous activity. My best guess is that it is.