Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Visual tree assesment validity.


Ty Korrigan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

In 2013, we worked on a large and very tall Macrocarpa here in Brittany for a British couple.

A member of our team who was a former tree officer before moving here gave the tree a VTA.

Risks where discussed but the couple neither wished to remove such the tree nor could afford it at the time.

We also removed some wind damaged and dead branches on the day.

March 6th this year and storm Doris managed to uproot and topple the tree onto their cottage.

The insurance is only paying two thirds out and are holding the couple liable for the remaining third as the tree was such an obvious risk.

The couple have come back to us suggesting we are liable ourselves as we gave the tree a clean bill of health even though we did point out the very obvious risk to the house at the time.

No written tree report was commissioned at the time.

I'm not worried, it's bluff on the part of the client and I'm not going to start telling every client their trees are to come down just because they are in range of their house.

Ty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

Hello Ty,

 

May I ask what work was carried out on the tree (in addition to the removal of the wind damaged and dead branches) and what risks were discussed with the client?

 

Do you have any information on what part failed e.g. Union of co dominant stems, uprooting etc?

 

I agree with Edward. If they were concerned about the tree they should have had it inspected more frequently. A lot can change within four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, French law 'v' English law = dunno? :001_huh:

 

Secondly, hindsight is both a wonderful thing AND something that is oft implied after trees have failed...and/or accidents have happened.

 

Thirdly, and as I interpret it (but, as always, to be corrected) - in a legal context the bigger the tree the greater the risk, regardless of condition. IN one respect this doesn't makes sense, at least not to me, but it would appear to be about the potential consequences of tree failure should it occur...even if 'unforeseeable' (is that the same as an 'Act of God'?)

 

Sorry, just some, probably inconsequential, ramblings :confused1:

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

PS Ty, well done for not being rattled here by their, perhaps understandable, approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK compared to French law, good question....?

 

There was the case (would need to look for detail) where it was attempted by a homeowner to hold a tree contractor liable for a tree failure. From memory, findings were something like, tree contractor was engaged to do tree work not to provide advice, guidance, recommendations, professional (indemnified) inspection and report.

 

Plus.... 4 years later? If some (unwritten) advice was provided at the time, and it wasn't heeded by the homeowner, and unless the work conducted can be shown to have contributed to the subsequent failure, it could be worth a short letter back explaining that counter costs will be applied for any administrative inconvenience incurred in dealing with the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VTA does not assess risks, it identifies hazards. The hazards and their likelihood of materialising need to be weighed up against what or who might be hit and hte severity of harm or damage, and then consideration given by the occupier to tolerance of that risk and the amenity value attached to the tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell the client the tree was considered safe at that time under normal circumstances. However, trees are living organisms and circumstances change so they should have had their tree checked more frequently. No tree is entirely safe, but even 'safe' trees blow over in storms and when this happens it's just an act of God for which you cannot be responsible.

 

I wouldn't even go that far. If you state it was safe in your opinion a few years ago, the owners could pursue a line of argument now that the defect that caused it to fail now was likely present a few years ago too and ... gotcha on negligence.

 

There was a bit of this kind of thing in the recent Cavanagh v Witley (and another) case.

 

It would suffice, surely, for OP to be honest and say tre was assessed informally, hazards identifed and risks discussed but the owners decided not to proceed?

 

As the saying goes 'the law operates best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.