Lawn damaged by supermarket lorry

Post by Andrew
Hi all,
While I was on holiday a supermarket lorry drove on to my front garden completely wrecking my lawn while trying to turn on to the road the runs adjacent to my house. A local resident told me about it as he witnessed it. I contacted the supermarket and they said they will discuss it with their transport department to find who the driver was and whether he will admit to it. The person I spoke to gave me the impression it is unlikely they will pay compensation.
I was hoping for some advice on what to do? Do I have any case?

You have a very strong case. Probably the strongest of cases, assuming
that you have a witness who can say what happened and what the
registration number was, or at least that the name of the supermarket
was plainly displayed on the vehicle.

The person you spoke to was probably under instructions never to admit
liability.

Make sure you write to the supermarket setting out the circumstances and
saying that you want to claim damages. Strictly speaking the damages
will be the cost of repairing your lawn. If it isn't worthwhile paying a
gardener to repair it, you could calculate how many strips of turf
you'll need and add something for your own time and labour and
inconvenience. They might simply pay up, once you tell them what you're
claiming.

Fredxxx

2015-03-19 20:01:36 UTC

Post by The Todal

Post by Andrew
Hi all,
While I was on holiday a supermarket lorry drove on to my front garden
completely wrecking my lawn while trying to turn on to the road the
runs adjacent to my house. A local resident told me about it as he
witnessed it. I contacted the supermarket and they said they will
discuss it with their transport department to find who the driver was
and whether he will admit to it. The person I spoke to gave me the
impression it is unlikely they will pay compensation.
I was hoping for some advice on what to do? Do I have any case?

You have a very strong case. Probably the strongest of cases, assuming
that you have a witness who can say what happened and what the
registration number was, or at least that the name of the supermarket
was plainly displayed on the vehicle.
The person you spoke to was probably under instructions never to admit
liability.
Make sure you write to the supermarket setting out the circumstances and
saying that you want to claim damages. Strictly speaking the damages
will be the cost of repairing your lawn. If it isn't worthwhile paying a
gardener to repair it, you could calculate how many strips of turf
you'll need and add something for your own time and labour and
inconvenience. They might simply pay up, once you tell them what you're
claiming.

A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

Mark Goodge

2015-03-19 21:01:14 UTC

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:01:36 +0000, Fredxxx put finger to keyboard and

Post by Fredxxx

Post by The Todal

Post by Andrew
Hi all,
While I was on holiday a supermarket lorry drove on to my front garden
completely wrecking my lawn while trying to turn on to the road the
runs adjacent to my house. A local resident told me about it as he
witnessed it. I contacted the supermarket and they said they will
discuss it with their transport department to find who the driver was
and whether he will admit to it. The person I spoke to gave me the
impression it is unlikely they will pay compensation.
I was hoping for some advice on what to do? Do I have any case?

You have a very strong case. Probably the strongest of cases, assuming
that you have a witness who can say what happened and what the
registration number was, or at least that the name of the supermarket
was plainly displayed on the vehicle.
The person you spoke to was probably under instructions never to admit
liability.
Make sure you write to the supermarket setting out the circumstances and
saying that you want to claim damages. Strictly speaking the damages
will be the cost of repairing your lawn. If it isn't worthwhile paying a
gardener to repair it, you could calculate how many strips of turf
you'll need and add something for your own time and labour and
inconvenience. They might simply pay up, once you tell them what you're
claiming.

A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

The general rule of thumb when claiming for the time taken to do something
is that you claim for the amount it would cost to pay someone to do it.

In a case like this, getting a quote from a landscape gardener would be a
good starting point.

Mark

--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

Roger Hayter

2015-03-19 22:46:44 UTC

Post by Fredxxx

Post by The Todal

Post by Andrew
Hi all,
While I was on holiday a supermarket lorry drove on to my front garden
completely wrecking my lawn while trying to turn on to the road the
runs adjacent to my house. A local resident told me about it as he
witnessed it. I contacted the supermarket and they said they will
discuss it with their transport department to find who the driver was
and whether he will admit to it. The person I spoke to gave me the
impression it is unlikely they will pay compensation.
I was hoping for some advice on what to do? Do I have any case?

You have a very strong case. Probably the strongest of cases, assuming
that you have a witness who can say what happened and what the
registration number was, or at least that the name of the supermarket
was plainly displayed on the vehicle.
The person you spoke to was probably under instructions never to admit
liability.
Make sure you write to the supermarket setting out the circumstances and
saying that you want to claim damages. Strictly speaking the damages
will be the cost of repairing your lawn. If it isn't worthwhile paying a
gardener to repair it, you could calculate how many strips of turf
you'll need and add something for your own time and labour and
inconvenience. They might simply pay up, once you tell them what you're
claiming.

A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

I agree, such a claim, if it ever got to court, would probably not be
accepted. But the OP has a perfect right to get an accurate commercial
estimate (perhaps as someone said get three) for the work to be done and
claim on this basis. This is his loss, and he has a right to these
damages whether he gets a firm to do it, does it himself, or even leaves
the lawn as it is and spends the money on something else.

--
Roger Hayter

Tim Watts

2015-03-20 08:45:48 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.

Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

Roland Perry

2015-03-20 10:17:36 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

I think that some official estimates, for the purposes of cost-benefit
analysis of travel improvements, use 30% of someone's wage rate (after
tax).

--
Roland Perry

Tim Watts

2015-03-20 12:12:09 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

As others have said, the price submitted for claim should be the cost of
professional reinstatement.

If the OP chooses to make good himself then that money is fair compensation.

The Reductio ab Absurdum extent of any other position is to suggest that
a person's time is worthless.

Post by Roland Perry
I think that some official estimates, for the purposes of cost-benefit
analysis of travel improvements, use 30% of someone's wage rate (after
tax).

Roland Perry

2015-03-20 12:27:39 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

As others have said, the price submitted for claim should be the cost
of professional reinstatement.

And the cost of the OP's time enquiring here, commissioning and
supervising the professional, getting the money out of trucking
company...?

Post by Tim Watts
If the OP chooses to make good himself then that money is fair compensation.
The Reductio ab Absurdum extent of any other position is to suggest
that a person's time is worthless.

Not "worthless" but "impossible to quantify and not possible to claim
compensation for".

--
Roland Perry

Tim Watts

2015-03-20 13:26:05 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Not "worthless" but "impossible to quantify and not possible to claim
compensation for".

If we wish to factor in the OPs extra time, could not the minimum wage
be applied?

Roland Perry

2015-03-20 14:07:29 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Not "worthless" but "impossible to quantify and not possible to claim
compensation for".

If we wish to factor in the OPs extra time, could not the minimum wage
be applied?

One of the problems with that is there's little control of the
effectiveness with which he uses his time, so it's a bit of a blank
cheque.

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2015-03-20 19:12:34 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

As others have said, the price submitted for claim should be the cost of
professional reinstatement.
If the OP chooses to make good himself then that money is fair compensation.
The Reductio ab Absurdum extent of any other position is to suggest that
a person's time is worthless.

Which, unfortunately, is more or less what the court would do if it had
to assess your damages on the basis of diy. So another vote for a
professional estimate.

Post by Roland Perry
I think that some official estimates, for the purposes of cost-benefit
analysis of travel improvements, use 30% of someone's wage rate (after
tax).

But not County Courts.

--
Roger Hayter

Fredxxx

2015-03-20 21:21:50 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

As others have said, the price submitted for claim should be the cost of
professional reinstatement.
If the OP chooses to make good himself then that money is fair
compensation.
The Reductio ab Absurdum extent of any other position is to suggest that
a person's time is worthless.

The purpose of the court is to put reinstate the position the owner was
in before the incident.

With either the cost of putting it righ, with evidence of this cost. If
the loss in value is less than this cost, then a defence could
reasonably argue that only this loss is due.

Roger Hayter

2015-03-21 01:08:57 UTC

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

His time.
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

In such circumstances I don't believe that "time is money". And how
would you put a price on it?

As others have said, the price submitted for claim should be the cost of
professional reinstatement.
If the OP chooses to make good himself then that money is fair compensation.
The Reductio ab Absurdum extent of any other position is to suggest that
a person's time is worthless.

The purpose of the court is to put reinstate the position the owner was
in before the incident.
With either the cost of putting it righ, with evidence of this cost. If
the loss in value is less than this cost, then a defence could
reasonably argue that only this loss is due.

The evidence from the house selling programmes on TV (and my impression)
is that large lorry wheel churn marks in an open plan front lawn would
knock 50,000GBP off the value of an average suburban semi.

--
Roger Hayter

Tim Watts

2015-03-21 08:58:31 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
The evidence from the house selling programmes on TV (and my impression)
is that large lorry wheel churn marks in an open plan front lawn would
knock 50,000GBP off the value of an average suburban semi.

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

Roger Hayter

2015-03-21 09:59:33 UTC

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

Apparently, not all house buying decisions are wholly rational.
However, my main point was that there is no way to specify the market
value of a lawn, as it is only traded as a very small part of a larger
item.

--
Roger Hayter

Paul Rudin

2015-03-21 11:13:52 UTC

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

Whilst in theory an assessment of damages to real property as a result of
a tort might take account the reduction in value, where it's something
that is relatively straight forward to rectify (like this) you're not
going to get anything other than the cost of reinstatement to the
original condition.

Roger Hayter

2015-03-21 12:22:40 UTC

Post by Paul Rudin

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

Isn't the problem for householders usually the other way round? When
reinstatement costs a lot more than the difference it makes to the value
of the property and insurers refuse to pay out more than the diminution
in value?

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2015-03-21 13:06:12 UTC

Post by Paul Rudin
Whilst in theory an assessment of damages to real property as a result of
a tort might take account the reduction in value, where it's something
that is relatively straight forward to rectify (like this) you're not
going to get anything other than the cost of reinstatement to the
original condition.

Is that a bit like the opposite of betterment, which is for policies
without a "new for old" clause?

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2015-03-21 17:43:14 UTC

Is that a bit like the opposite of betterment, which is for policies
without a "new for old" clause?

No, it precisely is "betterment" and that is why they won't pay it.
And I don't think building insurance is available as "new for old".

--
Roger Hayter

Roland Perry

2015-03-22 10:49:12 UTC

Is that a bit like the opposite of betterment, which is for policies
without a "new for old" clause?

No, it precisely is "betterment" and that is why they won't pay it.
And I don't think building insurance is available as "new for old".

A house would normally be valued at £200k, but it's discovered it needs
underpinning.

The cost of doing that is £30k, but the resulting house is only work
£190k on a principle akin to "no smoke without fire".

Does the insurance company pay only the £10k (viz: the diminution in
value at the end of the project), or the £30k direct expense, or even
the £30k + £10k (which is the closest approximation to putting the
householder in the position they were before the incident arose)?

If the house was only worth £140k when "awaiting underpinning", would
they pay £50K (viz: the diminution in value at the start of the
project)?

--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter

2015-03-22 13:40:13 UTC

at 17:43:14 on Sat,

Post by Paul Rudin
Whilst in theory an assessment of damages to real property as a
result of a tort might take account the reduction in value, where
it's something that is relatively straight forward to rectify (like
this) you're not going to get anything other than the cost of
reinstatement to the original condition.

Is that a bit like the opposite of betterment, which is for policies
without a "new for old" clause?

No, it precisely is "betterment" and that is why they won't pay it.
And I don't think building insurance is available as "new for old".

I see what you mean, but that is the opposite to the situation I
described. I was thinking of perhaps an outbuilding falling down,
which would make only 10kGBP difference to the house value, but would
cost 50kGBP to rebuild. The insurer might well pay only the 10kGBP.

Does the insurance company pay only the £10k (viz: the diminution in
value at the end of the project), or the £30k direct expense, or even
the £30k + £10k (which is the closest approximation to putting the
householder in the position they were before the incident arose)?
If the house was only worth £140k when "awaiting underpinning", would
they pay £50K (viz: the diminution in value at the start of the
project)?

Generally I think they would only pay the 30kGBP and you would be right
in your case - the opposite to betterment.

But, on reflection, neither my case nor the OP's lawn case (where a
small sum paid would make a bigger difference to the house value) are
relevant to betterment, as the value of the house is in neither case
increased above the original value before the damage.

--
Roger Hayter

Gorf

2015-03-23 10:13:16 UTC

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

It seems entirely plausible to me. I would not pay market value for a property that has a demonstrable risk of having its garden churned up by turning lorries.

Roland Perry

2015-03-23 10:42:28 UTC

Post by Gorf

That seems unlikely given you could have the entire front lawn returfed
for less than 1k and end up with a better lawn than before.

It seems entirely plausible to me. I would not pay market value for a
property that has a demonstrable risk of having its garden churned up
by turning lorries.

There are common risks and rarely occurring ones. Talking of gardens and
lorries, I've seen one that was slightly damaged by a house removals
van, the largest vehicle by far that would be found at the bottom of the
cul-de-sac. And after a few weeks the damage was put right and if you
hadn't been there, no-one would know it happened.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

2015-03-21 09:19:35 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
The purpose of the court is to put reinstate the position the owner was
in before the incident.
With either the cost of putting it righ, with evidence of this cost. If
the loss in value is less than this cost, then a defence could
reasonably argue that only this loss is due.

I think there's probably at least one too many noughts on the end of
that estimate. When people buy, and do up, a wreck they rarely make that
much on the entire project, let alone by merely returfing the front
lawn.

--
Roland Perry

n***@gmail.com

2015-03-22 12:01:35 UTC

Apart from "new for old" and getting a brand new car if yours is written off in the first year, almost all general insurance is underwritten on the basis that the customer will gain no "betterment", so suppose you own a car worth £1,000 and hit a lamp post: -

The insurers will not pay for repairs costing more than the value of the car and will write it off, paying the insured the market value pre accident less any excess.

The general rule for damage is that you should not end up better off that if you had not had to make a claim.

Roland Perry

2015-03-22 13:40:16 UTC

Post by n***@gmail.com
Apart from "new for old" and getting a brand new car if yours is written off in the first year, almost all general insurance is underwritten on
the basis that the customer will gain no "betterment", so suppose you own a car worth £1,000 and hit a lamp post: -
The insurers will not pay for repairs costing more than the value of the car and will write it off, paying the insured the market value pre
accident less any excess.

Although anecdotally they may well offer less than what the owner
considers to be a market value. And rarely anything close to replacement
cost.

Post by n***@gmail.com
The general rule for damage is that you should not end up better off that if you had not had to make a claim.

Which suggests that in the case of a write-off you should at least get
enough money to buy a replacement.

--
Roland Perry

Gorf

2015-03-21 13:21:04 UTC

Post by Tim Watts
Even if he was only planning to lie around drinking a beer in those
hours, that time is of value.

Maybe he would spend his time doing something else, but is forced to employ a contractor that he doesn't really trust, so he claims back the costs for the time he lost not doing the other task, the contractor AND the beer

;)

Paul Rudin

2015-03-20 10:03:15 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
A claim for materials; yes, but for your own labours? What financial
loss would the OP suffer?

As others have mentioned (assuming liability is established) and we're
talking about a claim in negligence, then you're entitled an amount so
as to put you in the position you would have been in had the negligent
act not occurred.

So here, you're entitled to the cost of getting your garden back the way
it was. A reasonable way of assessing this is to ask someone (or several
people) in that line of work for a quotation.

What you actually do with the money once awarded is irrelevant - you
could do the work yourself, or you could leave the garden in the damaged
state - there are no constraints on how you actually use the money.

Iain

2015-03-19 15:49:58 UTC

Post by Andrew
Hi all,
While I was on holiday a supermarket lorry drove on to my front
garden completely wrecking my lawn while trying to turn on to the
road the runs adjacent to my house. A local resident told me about it
as he witnessed it. I contacted the supermarket and they said they
will discuss it with their transport department to find who the
driver was and whether he will admit to it. The person I spoke to
gave me the impression it is unlikely they will pay compensation.
I was hoping for some advice on what to do? Do I have any case?

I personally would not want to get involved in the supermarket finding out
who was driving and whether they would admit to it. These could be stalling
techniques. You have your witness (that would be your 'case'). I would
suggest that you contact a local landscape gardener to get a quote (you may
want to get more than one quote) as to how much it would cost to get the
lawn back to its previous condition.

I would then present the quote(s) to the supermarket for them to pay for it,
and take it from there.

--
Iain

Gorf

2015-03-23 10:19:16 UTC

Post by Iain
I personally would not want to get involved in the supermarket finding out
who was driving and whether they would admit to it. These could be stalling
techniques.

Could the supermarket simply be trying to establish whether they have liability (if it was their own lorry), or if responsibility lies with a supplier's hauler?

If the lorry was being driven by a subcontracted haulier instead of one of their own employees, does the supermarket have any liability at all?

Paul Rudin

2015-03-23 12:52:37 UTC

Post by Gorf

Post by Iain
I personally would not want to get involved in the supermarket finding out
who was driving and whether they would admit to it. These could be stalling
techniques.

Could the supermarket simply be trying to establish whether they have liability
(if it was their own lorry), or if responsibility lies with a supplier's
hauler?
If the lorry was being driven by a subcontracted haulier instead of one of
their own employees, does the supermarket have any liability at all?

It depends on a number of things. Firstly, for these purposes, the
question of whether someone is an employee is not just a question of the
formalities of the contractual arrangements. It depends on the substance
of the arrangement. It's usual to refer to Ready Mixed Concrete
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Mixed_Concrete_(South_East)_Ltd_v_Minister_of_Pensions_and_National_Insurance>.

So the first thing is to establish whether the driver is in fact an
employee of the supermarket.

If he's not an employee of the supermarket then they he be an
employee of the haulier, or even a self-employed subcontractor.

It's possible that both the supermarket and the haulier could be
vicariously liable for the torts of the driver.

Even if an employee, if the driver is on a "frolic of his own" -
i.e. acting outside of the parameters of his purported employment - then
it could be that only he is liable.

Iain

2015-03-23 15:35:38 UTC