Tree Removal - Owner is unwilling to pay anything towards the cost.

[openspaceman]

8 hours ago, AHPP said:

Read about the origins and history of it and the Companies Acts. Bastardry.

Is this the gentlemen, in LLoyds coffee shop, gambling on which ships will founder?

 

it's like the enclosures acts kick-starting modern agriculture while starving many lesser mortals.

 

What about Karl Marx advocating limited liability, without which our modern capitalist system could never have grown.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

13 hours ago, EdwardC said:

, that would be for your insurer, if you have one, or you if not, to defend a case of negligence

Agree with Marks point - never seen it happen - it’d have to be a big bucks (or bloody minded action of the more money than sense brigade) but did you mean “Present” a case of negligence, Party (alleged to have) caused the damage to defend??

 

 

[AHPP]

6 hours ago, openspaceman said:

Is this the gentlemen, in LLoyds coffee shop, gambling on which ships will founder?

 

And the ship owners who could load the boats up and profit if the voyage was a success or profit from the insurance if the ship went down (with the cargo and blokes).

Edited July 4, 2018 by AHPP

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

I meant what I said. Your tree, you could be liable in negligence, you'd have to defend.

Yes understood....  I mis-read what I thought I thought you meant in what you wrote...

[WesD]

What would happen if a TO refused work on a TPO’d tree which later failed and caused damage, killed, injured someone or blocked a railway or caused subsidence, who would defend the negligence?

[WesD]

12 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Possibly both the LPA and the TO.  Basically, the LPA will have to defend its strategy of surveying and management of trees, and the TO would have to defend their inspection.

 

Accidents are rarely the fault of one person. Blame will be aportioned according to the circumstances.

Surely if negligence is to blame it can’t be an accident? 

 

[Mark Bolam]

9 hours ago, EdwardC said:

How many do you want. Every court case arising from tree failure that has caused damage, killed, or injured anyone, blocked a railway, or caused subsidence will be one of negligence.

I know that’s the legal position on it Edward, but of all the trees I’ve cleared from roads, lines, buildings etc. the tree owner has never once been bought to account.

[Mark Bolam]

Fair enough Edward, although I do know some of the landowners in question and know they never had any comeback.

 

There was never anything that was massively catastrophic or anyone injured though.

[Mark Bolam]

That always came after I arrived....

[Gary Prentice]

14 hours ago, WesD said:

What would happen if a TO refused work on a TPO’d tree which later failed and caused damage, killed, injured someone or blocked a railway or caused subsidence, who would defend the negligence?

It also depends what the work was. If it was pruning for light issues, that's what the LA determine. They probably wouldn't be expected by a judge to go around the back of the tree and start poking round the buttresses for Kretz ffbs. 

 

On the other hand if the reason for works was that the owner thought it unsafe because of great big fruiting bodies and the TO didn't consider the affect of that fungi species on that species of tree - totally different story.