National Trust sued

[Gareth Dalzell]

Using this argument could an MOT examiner be held responsible for a accident attributed to mechanical failure between MOT's??????????

 

I think not.

 

I don't think that a good comparison as a MOT inspector is only confirming that you have been keeping the vehicle road worthy, not that it is necessarily road worthy for 12 months. Does a tree surveyor indemnify the owner until the next inspection is due? I dont know? Interested to hear your thoughts.

[andy26]

Does a tree surveyor indemnify the owner until the next inspection is due? I dont know? Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

No, but if it could be proved that the inspector was negligent at the time of inspection then there maybe a case for redress. (e.g. a tree was obviously rotting at the time of inspection etc.).

 

If the inspector did everything that was reasonable and practical given the situation then there can be no case to answer.

[Gareth Dalzell]

No, but if it could be proved that the inspector was negligent at the time of inspection then there maybe a case for redress. (e.g. a tree was obviously rotting at the time of inspection etc.).

 

If the inspector did everything that was reasonable and practical given the situation then there can be no case to answer.

 

So, it all boils down to whether the tree was properly inspected or frequently enough inspected. And then do we get down to a definitive tree survey format carried out by suitablity qualified/experienced person.

 

I can see why the courts can spend so much time discussing cases back and forth - a lot of opinions flying about - Still can't help thinking about those who were affected by this tragedy.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

everyone of these cases is another nail in the coffin for the environment.

 

the NTSG document will not achieve a cesation of this growing trend and fear. Soon no tree will be allowed to reach maturity.

 

My sincere condolences to the family.

 

may we all learn to consider the wider implications when looking for justice in this world.

 

Some things in life cant be explained, there is no ryme nor reason for these things and if life is only allowed to exist if it is possible to quantify the risks in living, we will soon be in a lot of trouble!

[Charlieh]

Interestingly the second case mentioned against NT from earlier on, it is my understanding time they had been warned about the offending branch and why there was a longer investigation into it. NT arent having a very good time this week.

 

I have been doing some bits with NT and tbh they are so paranoid about this now, I have felled trees that have a single small dead limb in the crown. Today i have taken down a couple of trees that were classed as hazzards despite being completely sound. Its a shame but areas where the public are now known to use have to be managed very carefully, this now extends to desire paths rather than RoW's as well. Its a sorry state we have come to, in my woodland i have told the insurance company that if i want to go for FSC certification I need a % of deadwood to make this criteria so this will be retained and they were fine with this despite me having a permisive path through the wood.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Charlieh

[Rob D]

It was a terrible tragic accident.

 

 

But accidents happen in life.

 

How will we ever get out of the terrible blame culture we have sunk ourselves into unless we accept that life is full of risk.

 

If it gets so expensive (trying to avoid liability) to keep trees then no one will keep them...

 

 

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Im not a legal beagle but looking at tonys posts (excelent as always) I would have to go back to my comfortable position and be more than happy that should any of us end up in court for such things that an even half decent grasp at the law should see the case for trees rather than against. and the NTSG paper is supposed to be helping in such cases.

 

WE, MUST make sure we are all clued up on these legalitities so that as and when the time comes we WIN and trees WIN, rather than the current situation, which in this case is not yet resolved or final.

 

i will be interested in the verdict, these cases are always interesting, though very sad.

 

Tony S. can you reccomend any books to clue up on the law around such things, and have links to importnt historic cases:001_smile:

[b101uk]

Using this argument could an MOT examiner be held responsible for a accident attributed to mechanical failure between MOT's??????????

 

I think not.

 

As you used the MoT as an example even though it is quite irrelevant to this thread

 

if the MoT examiner is found to have passed vehicles threw MoT's when they shouldn’t have passed and it has been reported then they can will lose there licence to issue MoT's for VOSA, for car dealers who issue MoT certificates for cars they are selling which shouldn’t have had an MoT in there currant condition there is legal redress should an accident happen in an unsafe car, I know of a few that have been prevented for X number of years or life and subject to retraining, unfortunately in arb there is NO such method of weeding out the less than scruples or inept people who examine trees.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

As you used the MoT as an example even though it is quite irrelevant to this thread

 

if the MoT examiner is found to have passed vehicles threw MoT's when they shouldn’t have passed and it has been reported then they can will lose there licence to issue MoT's for VOSA, for car dealers who issue MoT certificates for cars they are selling which shouldn’t have had an MoT in there currant condition there is legal redress should an accident happen in an unsafe car, I know of a few that have been prevented for X number of years or life and subject to retraining, unfortunately in arb there is NO such method of weeding out the less than scruples or inept people who examine trees.

 

 

let us not forget that as Claus mattheck says "we have the mosty difficult job in the world, to structurally asses trees"

[b101uk]

One could say that but I would suggest that it presents a mistakenly narrow view of the situation. Not all failures are predictable and therefore it is beyond the capacity of any inspector to identify invisible defects them however short the inspection interval. Similarly, as healthy trees, or parts of healthy trees, can fail without the presence of incipient defects if subjected to sufficient force (i.e., gales) your dichotomy is a presciption for unnessecary felling. The only 'safe' tree is one that no longer exists.

 

I take on board you prior post RE:

above, any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape. etc

 

however laws are tested by courts for validity, so even though the drafting my say "any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape" it only becomes truly the case once it has been tested by the courts.

 

if we take the logical point of view as applied for other feature of the landscape (natural vs. man made) and we apply the same methodology to trees then

 

a naturally self set tree in a private woodland with little influence from "man" ware the public are not meant to be and if the public are there they are trespassing would logically have a lower liability than a stately home that opens its doors to the public and has a landscaped garden with trees planted by man in not necessarily natural positions which probably for 100+ years have had “men” messing with them then you could say that has a higher liability.

 

If we take something similar like a rock face, if it’s a natural feature like at the coast or can occur in-land threw geological formation there is little or no onus on the land owner to fence it off or provide warnings as it’s a totally natural feature, on the other hand if the rock face was as a result of quarrying (man made/influenced) then the onus would be to fence it off and provide warning as it NOT a natural feature.

 

Do you perhaps see that the rock face analogy mirrors the two sides “natural self set woodland that is private and NOT open to the public vs. formal gardens ostensibly engineered to look natural but are not and are heavily influence by man and open to the public”

 

 

I agree perhaps more trees would be lost if my view was taken but that is better than a single child dying because someone was a bit conservative with the proverbial axe, if we were to take things a step further and perhaps embrace keeping trees that may have a question mark over them with respect to safety but want to be kept for aesthetics then what’s to stop a simple fence being put around them with adequate warnings to keep the public out of the possible danger zone, I am sure it would be better to chuck £1000 of fencing around the tree and keep it and the public safe than chuck £1000 a felling etc and losing its aesthetic value etc.