TD wrote:

A spin on this is "My insurance will pay for damage to my property,
but then they will sue you to recover their expense."

As a LEGAL principle, the neighbor is responsible for all damage
something on his property causes on another (excepting acts of God
like a lightning strike or armed rebellion).

He's already proven he's not a "good neighbor" by letting the
situation reach the imminent peril stage.




How do you know what they can see? Perhaps the neighbor doesn't know
the tree is broken. They may not be able to see it from their vantage
point.


You raise a good point - if the neighbor was unaware of the problem, it's
hard to prove liability.

It should be easy, however, to prove the neighbor SHOULD have known. It's
his responsibility to monitor his property for hazards, especially something
as large as a tree.

If the neighbor can't monitor his property - say he's trying to convert
little brown babies in Africa to the one true church - he still has an
obligation to employ an agent to look after things.