When is your neighbour not responsible for Storm damage

[Zeus]

ggump...

each case is different. you cannot pick the circumstances out of one, and transpose it onto another, to get a suitable outcome.

trampoline - no. common domestic item which can reasonably be expected to be allowed to live in a neighbours backyard, not expected to fly over 10m high walls, has taken appropriate action in the past...various other reasons.

glycerin - the duty of care is MUCH higher due inherent risks involved, and as such, would likely be in trouble. there are guidleines on how and where to store, there are commercial situations to properly keep such 'things' etc. this should all have been done. risks are higher, not expected to store in backyards or be held in domestic situations..etc etc etc etc.

im not reciting chapter and verse for you, its a waste of time. tort law and negligence is the law of common sense...you know the answers.

Ricardo, you have raise a fairly good point.

A point which have not yet been mentioned in this thread is the courts try to limit liabilities in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. So if the OP's claim is successful, what other repucussion does this have? how about swing in the backyard? What about a portable bbq? chairs and tables that may be in the back yard? hoses? sheds? etc (list goes on).

As you have mentioned, a trampoline is a household item which can be considered common and it is fairly reasonable for a common person to have (e.g. applying a reasonable persons tests).

Sounds like you are trying to seek damages/remedies from your neighbour, if you plan to do so probably best to speak to a lawyer first.