Visual tree assesment validity.

[Ty Korrigan]

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

[Paul Melarange]

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.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Firstly, French law 'v' English law = dunno?

 

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

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

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

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

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.

[Gary Prentice]

Haven't got it to hand, but are you thinking of the tree that fell on a rail line, after which the rail company took the owner and arborist to court?

[nepia]

Looking from an English legal point of view... I doubt any court or insurance company would pay much heed to a 4-year old alleged verbal assessment; they'd want a report upon which to base judgment.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Haven't got it to hand, but are you thinking of the tree that fell on a rail line, after which the rail company took the owner and arborist to court?

 

 

That's the badger!

[daltontrees]

That's the badger!

 

Stagecoach v Hinds and Steel 2014. Correct, poor Mr Steel had only been there previously to work on tree, Stagecoach tried to show he had a 'duty to warn' but like the landowner he had no cause to inspect the base of the tree.

[daltontrees]

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.

[daltontrees]

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'.