National Trust sued

[Ian H]

Sense prevails.

 

BBC News - Felbrigg Hall tree death: National Trust 'not to blame'

 

Thank god for some common sense at last.

 

For those with a slow afternoon - the actual ruling...

 

Bowen (A Child) & Ors v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB) (27 July 2011)

 

Very interesting reading, thanks for posting Tony.

[Treewolf]

Thank goodness, a breath of common sense!

 

The human race will never be able to remove all risk to life and health from our environment, and if we did so life would become pointless IMO. We are biologically attracted to and invigorated by risk - it kept us alive in the old days, and is why we undertake sports etc now. I dare say to an extent it is why everyone here does the job that they do.

 

The more you legislate to remove risk, the more you abolish the need for common sense and hazard perception. We bring up our kids now to believe that everything is safe, so they no longer need to recognise risk. It's why they walk into roads, play on railways etc (well, possibly the latter is in an attempt to get some risk - excitement - into their lives).

 

Without common sense, "accidents" like the one that started this thread will continually happen.

 

I wouldn't walk about in woods on a blustery day without looking up and assessing the risk from falling debris, and I'll wager that no-one else on this forum would - we all recognise that there is a risk. Most visitors to an NT property probably have been lulled into the belief that there cannot be any risk - it is totally safe - because the law says it must be.

 

Everyone needs healthy awareness of hazard perception in daily life; it is called common sense.

 

It would be better to teach kids to be aware of risk and be sensible than to force landowners etc to create totally safe enviroments.

 

Not sure I have expressed this very well but I am sure you understand my point even if you don't agree with it!

[Beardie]

Treewolf, I couldn't have put it better myself. There is no way that a landowner can be responsible for removing all natural risks from the outdoors.

[Canal Navvy]

For those with a slow afternoon - the actual ruling...

 

Bowen (A Child) & Ors v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB) (27 July 2011)

 

Thanks for posting:001_smile:

 

Yet another great link from Mr Sorensen:thumbup:

[scotspine1]

Tragic story for all involved.

 

Hopefully this case will serve to sharpen the minds of people who are responsible for the management of trees.

[David Humphries]

Tragic story for all involved.

 

Hopefully this case will serve to sharpen the minds of people who are responsible for the management of trees.

 

 

A very good & sober point SP, but I would also like to see the flip side of this tradgedy provide better education toward the public in relation to what trees can & will do. Especially in adverse weather conditions.

 

Old growth trees & woods can never become totaly safe, no matter how rigid the tree inspection regime is.

 

All too often people go and take shelter under trees in high winds, heavy rain etc, which sadly ups the risk & potential of injury/fatality, like in this case at Felbrigg.

 

 

I often visit Felbrigg & other sites like it, & obviously have the knowledge of a tree man to risk assess as I go around it with the wife & kids. I doubt the majority of other visitors ever even consider the risk when setting foot out of the car parks and enter into the woods.

 

Perhaps more interpretation & ranger activity at the car parks could and possibly would be a prudent use of site budgets to inform & manange the risk in a more interactive way ?

 

 

 

 

.

[Crazy Cutter]

One could argue that a tree that has been planted by “man” in a specific place and/or has had maintenance on it by “man” is NOT a 'natural feature' in the same way a sculpted/landscaped terrain is not, nor a ditch dug by man, etc etc.

 

One could also say that if a tree inspection program was in place and the tree failed between inspections then the person doing the inspecting got it wrong and was not duly cautious or the time between inspections was to long - in either case an amount of liability for failure must rest with the NT and its employees be they the people in the office setting inspection periods or the man inspecting trees.

 

Just been reading through all the threads. i was working nearby that day there was a gale that afternoon and it rained heavily. why did the teacher take the children through woodland with those conditions? i don't see how the trust can be blamed for a tragic accident.

[button1803]

as sad as this accident is and after how nature acted, thoughts are with the family and all connected.

[Jamie M]

Good points well made Dave.

I have been banging on to my wife about the responsibility of those leading the party of children through the woods. However, she put me back in my box by saying that I was viewing the risks through a professional viewpoint which the general public cannot be expected to have the knowledge/experience to do. Suitably chastened I have to agree with her......

Sometimes we may forget that what seems common sense to us is only so because we have been trained in hazard awareness.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Having read the details within the court case I was most interested in the admission by all within the court that tree inspection is an "art" more than a "science"

 

This for me is an important recognition within the field of tree inspection/assessment/safety, recognition that trees are living breathing organisms that science will never quantify with any degree of accuracy.