Question

Javier Galindo, the husband of Richard Clark’s housekeeper, was sitting in his car, parked in the driveway of Clark’s house, waiting to pick up his wife. While he was waiting, a leaning 80-foot tree located on an adjacent property fell on Galindo’s car and killed him. Galindo’s wife sued Clark, alleging that Clark was liable for failing to notify Galindo about the danger posed by the leaning tree. Do you think that Clark had a legal responsibility to tell Galindo about the tree? Do you think Clark had an ethical responsibility to tell Galindo about the tree? Why might the answer to these questions be different? [Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 2 N.Y.3d 633 (2004).]

Answer 1

Clark is not liable since the tree belonged to neighboring property due to which Clark is not legally obligated to inform anything assosiated about that.Clark doest not have any ownership of the property and it was not in his power also to repair that tree in anycase.

Also there is no ethical resposibility assosiated with this also. It can be the case that Clark might not aware of the fact about this tree. In short it was not Clark's responsibility in whatsoever case.