Unstable tree

[Gary Prentice]

7 minutes ago, matelot said:

I'm not a lawyer. However I believe a landowner (and his tree surgeon) would owe his neighbour a duty of care if he started cutting overhanging branches. If he left the tree in such a state that it was liable to fall down it could open them up to possible litigation.

 

I think a judge would accept that occasionally trees get blown over. However if someone has left a tree in such a state that it's lop sided and it falls over it's negligence Imho.... 

As keeps being said, the reasonable cutter notifies of the intention/desire to cut limbs or roots. The responsible tree owner then has a duty of care to ensure the safety of his own tree. 

Can anyone please explain why the neighbour should suffer the encroachment?

 

almost every hedge owner that I meet thinks that the next door neighbour should be responsible for 'their' side of the hedge. Why? It's such an abstract concept of imposition on others.

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

The trees are 25m tall.
'Cutting back to boundary' would need the owners permission to climb the trees, or a large MEWP.
I stand by post 2 on this thread.

[Gary Prentice]

5 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

I'm sticking with fell - replant with a nice Beech hedge....

 

I'm thinking there'd be more than enough time for a good Malt to finish before that happens....  

 Didn't want the OP / tree owner to think they could just leave it for council and be away without cost 

Even Dick Turpin wore a mask

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

I'm sticking with fell - replant with a nice Beech hedge....

 

I'm thinking there'd be more than enough time for a good Malt to finish before that happens....  

 Didn't want the OP / tree owner to think they could just leave it for council and be away without cost 

 

[matelot]

17 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

As keeps being said, the reasonable cutter notifies of the intention/desire to cut limbs or roots. The responsible tree owner then has a duty of care to ensure the safety of his own tree. 

Can anyone please explain why the neighbour should suffer the encroachment?

 

 

Duty of care is judged by what a reasonable person would think. If a tree surgeon leaves a tree in a perilous state and the tree falls down I think a reasonable person would consider the tree surgeon negligent. Even if the tree surgeon told the neighbour it was dangerous it doesn't make up for the tree surgeon being negligent.

 

I dont think you can have a duty of care towards yourself. 

 

Using an extreme example. Say a tree surgeon cuts the limbs off a tree next to a school playground. The tree surgeon tells the school the tree is dangerous. A half hour later the tree falls and kills some kids. You think the tree surgeon has a leg to stand on?

[Gary Prentice]

3 minutes ago, matelot said:

Duty of care is judged by what a reasonable person would think. If a tree surgeon leaves a tree in a perilous state and the tree falls down I think a reasonable person would consider the tree surgeon negligent. Even if the tree surgeon told the neighbour it was dangerous it doesn't make up for the tree surgeon being negligent.

 

I dont think you can have a duty of care towards yourself. 

 

Using an extreme example. Say a tree surgeon cuts the limbs off a tree next to a school playground. The tree surgeon tells the school the tree is dangerous. A half hour later the tree falls and kills some kids. You think the tree surgeon has a leg to stand on?

Which is why I keep saying 'forewarn', I've never advocated doing the work then notifying the neighbour.

 

Edit, has anyone had a conifer fall over after one side of the canopy has been removed?

 

I haven't but have seen hundreds standing.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Gary Prentice

[Mark Bolam]

That's a good point Gary, connies are pretty light in general limb-wise.
I've never side-stripped an 80' tree though, and would refuse if asked.
Unless my kids were starving.
They're not, I've just checked, all three are asleep.

[billpierce]

That's a good point Gary, connies are pretty light in general limb-wise.
I've never side-stripped an 80' tree though, and would refuse if asked.
Unless my kids were starving.
They're not, I've just checked, all three are asleep.

My three are pretty fussy at eating their greens anyways

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, matelot said:

I'm not a lawyer. However I believe a landowner (and his tree surgeon) would owe his neighbour a duty of care if he started cutting overhanging branches. If he left the tree in such a state that it was liable to fall down it could open them up to possible litigation.

 

I think a judge would accept that occasionally trees get blown over. However if someone has left a tree in such a state that it's lop sided and it falls over it's negligence Imho.... 

It's not immediately obvious.

1. Do you believe that anyone has the ability to maintain branches of his tree over another person's land?

2. Do you believe that leaving a tree dangerous because someone has exerised his right to get his space back by cutting back a neighbour's branches should be unlawful?

If the answer to 1. is no and 2. is yes, how do you reconcile these answers, because one can't have both those answers?

If the answer to 1. is yes, that goes against clear case law, and the answer to 2. doesn't matter.

If the answer to 1. is no and 2. is no, and 2. is no, this is an impossible scenario unless the encroached party can be freed form negigence by warning the tree owner or getting the courts to order the tree owner to get rid of the problem, even if it makes the trees dangerous.

Rights and duties sometimes conflict, but a duty can't trrump a right if there is a reasonable course of action that can reconcile the two.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, matelot said:

Using an extreme example. Say a tree surgeon cuts the limbs off a tree next to a school playground. The tree surgeon tells the school the tree is dangerous. A half hour later the tree falls and kills some kids. You think the tree surgeon has a leg to stand on?

We're not talking about this extreme example. The scenario is this...

The tree owner or his agent tels the school, I have the right to cut back branches to my boundary. I'm going to do it in 3 months. I suspect it will leave the tree unstable and this could result in it falling over and harming someone. I would advise you to anticipate this and make the tree safe as soon as possible after the pruning is done. If in doubt, you might want to  take advice on this.

[matelot]

8 hours ago, daltontrees said:

It's not immediately obvious.

1. Do you believe that anyone has the ability to maintain branches of his tree over another person's land?

2. Do you believe that leaving a tree dangerous because someone has exerised his right to get his space back by cutting back a neighbour's branches should be unlawful?

If the answer to 1. is no and 2. is yes, how do you reconcile these answers, because one can't have both those answers?

Sometimes laws do contradict each other. When this happens it's really up to a judge to decide on the merits of each individual case.