Positive Action on Tree Safety……?

[Amelanchier]

If someone would like to condense what its on about it would be very much appreciated.

 

1. Trees are good

2. They break

3. Its not a big deal

4. The law is complicated

5. Be reasonable

[David Humphries]

1. Trees are good

2. They break

3. Its not a big deal

4. The law is complicated

5. Be reasonable

 

 

 

Behold, a politician for us common Arbs.

 

Within the shell of a nut, Mr S

 

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I think its time mr Fay came in and contributed to this discussion!

 

If your listening Neville, step in and give us your input, its much needed.

[felixthelogchopper]

1. Trees are good

2. They break

3. Its not a big deal

4. The law is complicated

5. Be reasonable

 

From the legal point of view, ie the possibility of a claim in Negligence, that word reasonable is the all important one. The benchmark case is Bolton v Stone where the defendant cricket club was cleared of negligence as they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid a highly unlikely occurence. All the evidence pointed towards the 'one in a million' nature of the harm occuring as well as a level of risk prevention by the club and so it was found by the court that it would be unreasonable to expect the club to have done more. Obviously, a high traffic area with a large number of potential targets would therefore need a higher degree of risk protection than would a tree standing alone in the middle of a 20 acre field that was rarely visited. Goes without saying that, like much in law, you will never find a set formula laid out to ascertain whether you have done enough to allay the risk sufficiently to satisfy any given judge on any given day.

[Amelanchier]

From the legal point of view, ie the possibility of a claim in Negligence, that word reasonable is the all important one. The benchmark case is Bolton v Stone where the defendant cricket club was cleared of negligence as they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid a highly unlikely occurence. All the evidence pointed towards the 'one in a million' nature of the harm occuring as well as a level of risk prevention by the club and so it was found by the court that it would be unreasonable to expect the club to have done more. Obviously, a high traffic area with a large number of potential targets would therefore need a higher degree of risk protection than would a tree standing alone in the middle of a 20 acre field that was rarely visited. Goes without saying that, like much in law, you will never find a set formula laid out to ascertain whether you have done enough to allay the risk sufficiently to satisfy any given judge on any given day.

 

Indeed, but where do the courts get their guidance in order to determine reasonableness? This document intends to bring together a consensus from a huge range of stakeholders to better inform the public as well as the courts.

 

Its not so much the content, though that is also important, as the fact that its being said by so many different groups. There's no point in our industry producing its own guidance based on its own opinons (BS8516?) - it stinks of nepotism and people rightly disengage from it.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

From the legal point of view, ie the possibility of a claim in Negligence, that word reasonable is the all important one. The benchmark case is Bolton v Stone where the defendant cricket club was cleared of negligence as they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid a highly unlikely occurence. All the evidence pointed towards the 'one in a million' nature of the harm occuring as well as a level of risk prevention by the club and so it was found by the court that it would be unreasonable to expect the club to have done more. Obviously, a high traffic area with a large number of potential targets would therefore need a higher degree of risk protection than would a tree standing alone in the middle of a 20 acre field that was rarely visited. Goes without saying that, like much in law, you will never find a set formula laid out to ascertain whether you have done enough to allay the risk sufficiently to satisfy any given judge on any given day.

 

 

 

I assume you meant the 1 in 10,000,000 chance?

[felixthelogchopper]

Indeed, but where do the courts get their guidance in order to determine reasonableness?

 

Precedent, the verbal dexterity of the opposing legal teams and the general sympathies of the sitting judge. That last one might only have applied to Lord Denning though

[felixthelogchopper]

I assume you meant the 1 in 10,000,000 chance?

 

That's inflation for you, Tony. Bolton v Stone is a good precedent case, but old.

[Amelanchier]

Precedent, the verbal dexterity of the opposing legal teams and the general sympathies of the sitting judge. That last one might only have applied to Lord Denning though

 

He was an odd fish.

 

They will of course take any existing guidance into account. Correctly following appropriate guidance diminishes the charge of negligence - its hard to prove someone didn't take reasonable action when they can point to a recognised document and show how they stuck to its requirements.

[felixthelogchopper]

He was an odd fish.

 

They will of course take any existing guidance into account. Correctly following appropriate guidance diminishes the charge of negligence - its hard to prove someone didn't take reasonable action when they can point to a recognised document and show how they stuck to its requirements.

 

Very true.