Trespass and nuisance roots, severance and liability

[Khriss]

....dunno if a layman would even know what a shigometer is *coff* K

 

( have you got one Kev ?? Are they good ? )

[daltontrees]

5 hours ago, DanR said:

 However, once again from an inexperienced perspective (mine ), it shows the lack of definitive legal guidance on where liability lies and therefore sadly will be one for the legal system to answer in due course.

I'll summarise the law for you. When considering what you are about to do or not bother doing, think first about whether it is going to badly affect someone else. If you can see that it is and you wouldn't want someone to do the same to you, you're probably in the wrong. There, who needs courts?

[DanR]

Ha! Well I noticed the report stated under Survey Limitations that "No internal decay devices/ invasive tools were used during this site survey". I thought it prudent to google what those devices could be and that's what came up. Maybe there are different ones but in any case, a fairly significant limitation I think when providing a definitive lifespan for a tree with disease on visual basis only and that becomes the main argument for retaining it. 

 

In hindsight I wish I had a Shigometer in the cupboard ?

[DanR]

3 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I'll summarise the law for you. When considering what you are about to do or not bother doing, think first about whether it is going to badly affect someone else. If you can see that it is and you wouldn't want someone to do the same to you, you're probably in the wrong. There, who needs courts?

Fair point Jules, however clearly there are two sides to every coin. If the tree didn't pose any problems with excessive root encroachment, damage to structures, risk of failure due to disease and was a fine specimen, then there would be no debate here. It cuts both ways and I guess everything needs a healthy level of pragmatism.

[daltontrees]

6 hours ago, tree77 said:

Just out of interest do you have a link to the research regarding roots and crushing drains please?

I'm not sure about copyright and where I got it form so I'll send it to you by PM. For private study only.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

....dunno if a layman would even know what a shigometer is *coff* K

 

( have you got one Kev ?? Are they good ? )

Old Skoool....

[daltontrees]

24 minutes ago, DanR said:

Ha! Well I noticed the report stated under Survey Limitations that "No internal decay devices/ invasive tools were used during this site survey". I thought it prudent to google what those devices could be and that's what came up. Maybe there are different ones but in any case, a fairly significant limitation I think when providing a definitive lifespan for a tree with disease on visual basis only and that becomes the main argument for retaining it. 

 

In hindsight I wish I had a Shigometer in the cupboard ?

No-one I know has a Shigometer. Or a Factometer. I know of 3 Sonic Tomographs and a few resistographs. But be warned, they may give the illusion of scoientific rigour but if not used and then interpreted with considerable skill the results will be somewhere between useless and dangerously misleading. And bloody expensive.

An important question is whther the law of negligence could ever require an tree owner to go to this expense. I suspect the answer is no. If you suspect a defect you should follow it up but that doesn't mean gadgets. A decent ear and a sounding hammer is usually enough to build up a picture of the inside of a decaying tree. I have an increment borer that I use only to prove what I already know. If you ever get a chance, sound a hollowing tree before it is felled, sketch the results with depths of decay and sound wood and cavity shape, then when the tree is cut down check if you were right. Adjust judgement and repeat as often as possible.

My hot tip is never ever to use the term life expectancy in a report. Safe Useful Life Expectancy is much better, or for BS5837 surveys use Expected Remaining Contribution.

[daltontrees]

1 minute ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

Old Skoool....

Ahh you beat me to it. Apparently Mike Ellison of QTRA fame and nothing but a hammer and some dude with an expensive toybox went head to head predicting the state of decay inside a tree, which was then cut down. I believe MIke Ellison's prediction was as good as the whizz-kid's.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

22 minutes ago, DanR said:

was a fine specimen

I thought I detected a hint of this in an earlier post..... 

 

The problem might arise where 2 people didn't necessarily agree on what constitutes 'a fine specimen.'

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

use Expected Remaining Contribution

(so long as it is accepted that 'contribution' is wide open to interpretation and is continually changing)