National Trust sued

[andy26]

National Trust sued after boy killed by falling tree - Telegraph

 

A tragic accident, but surely it was only that, an accident?

 

Unless the tree was a clear and obvious danger, is it just to hold the NT accountable?

 

I've always thought personal responsibility should be the first line. That's to say, you don't need telling if a tree or part of one falls on you then you could come to serious harm, therefore if this is a risk you do not wish to take then keep a safe distance from any tree (or any other hazard as applicable). In the case of a minor who is incapable of judging risk then the supervising adult should use their judgement.

[Big Bolt]

very tragic accident , a accident. the easy way around this is to deny accsses to all open spaces , im sure that this will happen how can these trust's , charitys , councils spend thousand's of pounds every year inspecting trees and having work done on them .

fair enough on highways and footpaths but this was in a wood , Duty and care to the public , surly there must be a cut of point where the public must use common sense and a care for themselves, i do believe the day was very windy .

[Cal_bell]

People forget that trees aren't man made structures, you sometimes can't predict when they are going to fail. As sad as this poor kids death is, and my thoughts go out to his family, It should be put down to one of those things.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

National Trust sued after boy killed by falling tree - Telegraph

 

A tragic accident, but surely it was only that, an accident?

 

Unless the tree was a clear and obvious danger, is it just to hold the NT accountable?

 

I've always thought personal responsibility should be the first line. That's to say, you don't need telling if a tree or part of one falls on you then you could come to serious harm, therefore if this is a risk you do not wish to take then keep a safe distance from any tree (or any other hazard as applicable). In the case of a minor who is incapable of judging risk then the supervising adult should use their judgement.

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I guess, given the relative rarity of the event, no-one ever expected the tree branch to fall and therefore would not have judged the risk / likelihood (whilst acknowledging the tragedy, and as a parent myself I can't imagine!, 'hindsight' make the less, or 'none', obvious seem just that.)

 

The National Tree Safety Group (NTSG, see Forestry Commission - National Tree Safety Group - Guidance) are shortly to issue guidance to tree owners on the need for, and frequency of, etc. tree inspections and thsi may give an additional 'steer' to the likes of the NT.

 

Reading the article, which just highlights the case is 'ongoing', the key factor would seem to be one of professional difference in relation to the 'risk' the tree posed. The NT, seemingly, placed it in the 'medium' category, and presumably the amended the inspection frequency and type accordingly, whereas the 'prosecutors' will doubtless view it as 'high/v high' risk given the outcome....again hindsight is undoubtedly a factor here.

 

Nonetheless a tragedy for a family losing a young son, thoghts and sympathies are shared by all.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Big J]

A tragic accident indeed - condolences to the family.

 

I would argue that it was just a freak accident, and compensation probably shouldn't be paid out. However, chatting to a National Trust for Scotland chap the other day, he said they have no active tree management (ie woodland management) programme. He said that amongst other reasons, the trustees don't like to cut trees down. Perhaps these large charities need to take a more proactive approach. Even on the estate where we live, they are pretty rigorous when it comes to assessing and managing problem trees in areas with heavier public activity.

 

Jonathan

[Dean Lofthouse]

This is why small woodlands will become ever cheaper.

 

There was a bit of a drive for private individuals to buy small parcels of woodlands for their own recreational use and enjoyment.

 

In reality, with the blame culture, all you are buying is liability.

 

Someone I know bought a large woodland bordered by hundreds of houses, I told him at the time he was crazy. All he gets week in week out is residents contacting him about over hanging branches, trees blocking light and falling branch complaints

 

I couldn't wait to get rid of my woodland with public access and replace it with one without public access

Edited June 22, 2011 by Dean Lofthouse

[Andy Collins]

How does a land-owner get on, esp with public access, if he has no funds to maintain very old trees where the public do have access? As we all know, to have a survey carried out is not cheap, to have the necessary work carried out is not cheap. If the pot is empty, no amount of good intention will prevent the inevitable failure of limbs and trees in time. I am not refering here to the NT btw, but a small parish church where the public need to tend graves, and with 2 public footpaths passing through, close to the trees.

[andy26]

This is why small woodlands will become ever cheaper.

 

There was a bit of a drive for private individuals to buy small parcels of woodlands for their own recreational use and enjoyment.

 

I don't agree entirely, as long as you take out occupiers liability insurance, you should be covered. Thankfully, the word 'reasonable' still caries weight in law. Yes its reasonable to expect a landowner to be responsible for a dead tree next to a public highway.

Its not reasonable to expect every tree in a large woodland to be monitored with the same vigour.

 

In reality, with the blame culture, all you are buying is liability.

It can seem like that. Usually with risk comes reward.

 

Someone I know bought a large woodland bordered by hundreds of houses, I told him at the time he was crazy. All he gets week in week out is residents contacting him about over hanging branches, trees blocking light and falling branch complaints

Doesn't sound like fun. There's no right to either light or a view however.

 

I couldn't wait to get rid of my woodland with public access and replace it with one without public access

Quite understandable.

[andy26]

How does a land-owner get on, esp with public access, if he has no funds to maintain very old trees where the public do have access? As we all know, to have a survey carried out is not cheap, to have the necessary work carried out is not cheap. If the pot is empty, no amount of good intention will prevent the inevitable failure of limbs and trees in time. I am not refering here to the NT btw, but a small parish church where the public need to tend graves, and with 2 public footpaths passing through, close to the trees.

 

Its not easy, this is why I really think we need a law change to switch it from a presumption of responsibility on the landowner, to responsibility on the part of the individual.

[Johny Walker]

a 2t branch ,thats a fair lump of wood for a tree to shed ,!!!!

 

i take it some on weighed it ,to get to that figure ?

 

or was it an estimate