info on legal constraints needed!

[janey]

Just a quickie here, a tree owner does not have a legal duty to have their trees inspected by a competnet person generally speaking, only perhaps when it is reasonably expected they should do so, i.e. big old tree with several defects overhanging a busy road junction. Recent case law (sorry can't remeber which one) demonsatrated this when Mrs Miggins, who was a keen gardener, made observations that nothing untoward or different in the appearance of the tree hence the failure of a limb, and resultant damage to 3rd party car, was deemed not forseeable and hence not negligent.

 

 

Sorry, I phrased that part of my quick answer given above very badly. I was trying to do too many things at once .

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I'm pretty sure insurance is not a legal requirement, but you would be very stupid not to have it.

 

Crap hes right too!

 

but to be fair, to not have it and find yourself in court could mean losing your house instead of your no claims bonus, so it might not be a legal one but you would have to be prety daft not to, and lucky to get work without it too!

[jaime bray]

The legal duty for trees to be inspected, in a round about way is under occupiers liabilty act 57 & 84, Where land owners have a duty of care to ensure that any persons entering their land whether invited or not doesnt come to any 'foreseeable harm, I.E falling branches hits someone, what was the fault in that case paul, would it have been picked up under a "professional" inspection, was she able to prove any record of assessment history.

 

thanks jaime

 

It was the case that if they didnt have the relevant expertise to do a sufficient assessment and didnt seek that expertise then they could be deemed negligent, How will this case law change things, be interesting to know the case name/reference

Edited April 4, 2011 by jaime bray