Flood - tractor driver

Idiot...

"A business owner says her beauty clinic may never reopen after contents were destroyed by a wave caused by a tractor driving through flood water in Tenbury Wells."

"A number of businesses have told the BBC doors and windows were smashed by the force of waves created by the tractor."

 
Sponsored Links
Of course the damage was caused by X [claim on your insurance] rather than Y [claim on my insurance which may not cover floods].
 
The farmer apologised for the damage caused?

Ok, let's just go with the farmer did nothing wrong and the shopkeepers are lying...
 
Sponsored Links
The farmer apologised for the damage caused?

Ok, let's just go with the farmer did nothing wrong and the shopkeepers are lying...
and of course nobody is arguing this.

Civil Damages caused by careless driving - no question. Claim on the insurance.

If you were the beauty shop owner, put to strict proof, unless you have cctv or witnesses, you have no way to prove that the window fell out because of the wave. No way to prove the flood water did not contribute.
 
If you were the beauty shop owner, put to strict proof, unless you have cctv or witnesses, you have no way to prove that the window fell out because of the wave.
"NEW CCTV footage has been shared showing a tractor being driven through the flooded streets causing a wave to crash against shops and smash windows."

 
You said people will make false claims
It's not a false claim to believe that someone's actions caused damage, when you are distraught at the destruction of your business due to a flood wall collapsing. It's something else to be able to prove the damage was a direct consequence of someones additional actions and place a value on the repair.
 
Do you know, for a fact, there were no windows smashed, caused by the tractor?

Have you seen the new CCTV footage?
yes I just watched it. I am as curious as you to see if he caused additional damage. I am not defending his stupid actions. I am stating its not criminal damage.
 
yes I just watched it.
I can't find it.
It's not a false claim to believe that someone's actions caused damage, when you are distraught at the destruction of your business due to a flood wall collapsing
that isn't what you were insinuating.
It's something else to be able to prove the damage was a direct consequence of someones additional actions and place a value on the repair.
Can they prove it?
 
Do you know what being put to strict proof is? (genuine question, not trying make you look stupid).
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top