Root pruning to boundary destabilising tree

[eco-tom]

A large mature lime has had roots severed by deep straight trench approx minimum 2m from stem extending several metres each direction. The trench is close to the boundary of one property. The tree is in the neighbouring property. I know that it is legally correct that the trench digger can sever the trespassing roots back to the boundary if they wish but my question is whether the owner of the tree noe damaged by this action could claim fo costs to remove the now dangerous tree?

[daltontrees]

No, but if the tree owner was not warned of the potential risk from the tree because of trenching damage, and it fails soon and causes harm or damage on either side of the boundary, the digger of the trench could be held liable .

[daltontrees]

Meanwhile, the answer is no. The only situation that miht involve the tree owner recovering costs from the trencher is if the tree had to be taken down in an emergency because of its condition adn the cost of take-down was greater than it would be in a less urgent situation. In that case I could see that part of the cost (the diference between non-urgent and urgent take-down costs) might form a valid part of a claim.

That's notteh same as saying the trencher has no liability. In this case I have suggested the circumstances for liability for harm or damage.

In England the law is more towards strict liability, but in Scotland it's a bit more civilised. England's slowly catching up.

And if there's a moral, it is that even though there may be no liability for take-down costs there may well be liability in negligence and that no-one should blunder in and render a neighbour's tree dangerous, eexpecting to rely on an infantile misunderstanding of (say) Lemmon v Webb. Consider the consequences of your actions before acting, then act reasonably, and the law will be on your side.

[donnk]

Not your tree, not your problem.

 

‘The encroachment of the boughs and roots over and within the land of the adjoining owner is not a trespass or occupation of that land which by lapse of time could become a right. It is a nuisance.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, donnk said:

Not your tree, not your problem.

 

‘The encroachment of the boughs and roots over and within the land of the adjoining owner is not a trespass or occupation of that land which by lapse of time could become a right. It is a nuisance.

There's that misunderstanding I was talking about.

[sbyorkshire]

It is also proving or not as the case maybe, is the tree destabilised. There are tests for this dynamic or static testing. 

[Ty Korrigan]

Hmmm. 

 Uncomfortable phone conversation with a client this evening.

Group of 3 large eucs, well over stood for their situation, each growing away from the others other at various degrees of lean.

I advised removing one and reducing the others.

In my original quote I mentioned possible risks.

Client asked me to reword the quote to remove phrases which might alarm the neighbour who had offered to pay half so that they might at last get some sun on his pool.

In the end, in May, we removed one tree and it's stump was ground out leaving the 2 others unpruned due to neighbour and clients budget constraints.

The trees where more than 2 metres apart from memory.

Client informs me that one of the remaining 2 eucs had started to go over.

He didn't call my mobile as per usual but left a message on my landline which I picked up the next day.

Meanwhile he had contacted another tree firm instead.

They informed him that the tree had gone over not due to the high winds and heavy prolonged rain, waterlogging the soil but because of the previous stump grinding had cut through important roots.

 From the tone of the conversation, it would seem that he would like to pin McShit on me and recover his costs.

I feel a lawyers letter in the offing.

Stuart

 

[openspaceman]

58 minutes ago, Ty Korrigan said:

They informed him that the tree had gone over not due to the high winds and heavy prolonged rain, waterlogging the soil but because of the previous stump grinding had cut through important roots.

 From the tone of the conversation, it would seem that he would like to pin McShit on me and recover his costs.

I feel a lawyers letter in the offing.

You do lead an interesting life Stuart

[Gary Prentice]

14 hours ago, Ty Korrigan said:

Hmmm. 

 Uncomfortable phone conversation with a client this evening.

 

 

Hope that you emailed the original, unrevised, quote and haven't deleted it. I sure that that would help if you end up in court.

 

I do wonder if, assuming that you kept the grinding nice and tight to the stump itself, grinding may have been a contributory factor? 

 

With the trees being close together you would expect roots to be intermingled, so severing roots from the stump of the tree that you felled may have then reduced the cohesion of the roots of the surrounding trees. 

 

I'd hope that it would be easy to prove, with some careful excavation of the ground stump, that you didn't sever any roots of the remaining trees, but if my theory is pursued you may have problems disproving that. 

 

I'd start by reminding the owner of your original quote and its warnings, along with plenty of research literature (Mattheck is good) about soil moisture content and root cohesion. Convince him he's on a hiding to nothing even pursuing the matter. Good luck.

[daltontrees]

I'd advise saying nothing, not even here on Arbtalk. It could get ugly and anything you say could be used against you. Be careful but don't worry. As the saying goes, the law works best when it is subservient to the honesty of the case.

 

PM me if you want pointed in the right direction.