Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Positive Action on Tree Safety……?


BatiArb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. :001_rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :001_rolleyes:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :001_rolleyes:

 

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :001_smile:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.