another tree injury on msn such a shame

[felixthelogchopper]

Absolutely right, and I hope the little lad is all better now. But I have to say though, I always make a point of looking up and around in winds, even in the car. It's no one else's responsibility to look out for my children or myself but my own.... It's about time the legal system reflected this and drew a line under the insistence on making someone responsible for everything which happens.... I fail to see how it can be anybody's fault someone gets injured if a branch falls off a tree in high winds, other than the person getting injured by it for not taking sensible precautions about where they were standing. Common sense, or the lack of it, by any injured party needs to become acknowledged as the primary cause of accidents again.

We [as a population] expose ourselves to unecessary danger these days purely as a result of the assumption that because we're protected by a poorly judged legal system, bad things won't happen because someone is responsible.

Remove that false sense of security and I'm sure accidents like this would become even less common as individuals began to exercise their own sense of self preservation a bit further... Personally, the knowledge that someone will get sued if my child becomes permanently disabled by accident is not sufficient to cause me to expose them to those risks.... The general population would do well to work on that basis a bit more frequently...

 

Have to disagree with you on this one. While I do agree that common sense is in unfortunately short supply these days and many liability law suits are both ridiculous and seeking to 'ambulance chase', I think your statement is a bit sweeping. Surely you would agree that somebody seeking to earn money from opening their premises to the general public, who cannot reasonably be expected to have expert knowledge of hazards present on those premises, owes a duty of care to ensure those premises are safe for those visitors. It's not unreasonable for the paying public to assume that if they are allowed into an area that it should be safe. Let me put a scenario to you; you are a member of a tree crew working in an area open to the public, relying on the groundcrew to manage the area in a safe manner. A member of the public enters the workzone and, not being stopped by any member of the team, proceeds to walk under a tree being worked on where they meet with an accident. Where do you point the finger of blame?

[log dog]

may i just say if the owners have taken adequate steps to ensure the public can have access in a resonably safe manner then they have done all they can surely . on the other hand if they have not maintained or inspected trees then thats a different story !

[felixthelogchopper]

may i just say if the owners have taken adequate steps to ensure the public can have access in a resonably safe manner then they have done all they can surely . on the other hand if they have not maintained or inspected trees then thats a different story !

 

I agree completely

[WorcsWuss]

. A member of the public enters the workzone and, not being stopped by any member of the team, proceeds to walk under a tree being worked on where they meet with an accident. Where do you point the finger of blame?

 

That's not a great example, even the most moronic member of our illustrious public should be able to spot some of the signs of there being something not quite right about that situation which may start to jingle faint alarm bells..... does no one look up anymore...?!

 

I still maintain that we are all responsible for our own personal safety... if it's a windy day then look up at the trees... if they're moving a lot, don't walk too close to them. You really don't need a diploma in arboriculture to make that judgement.

 

Unfortunately the example you described is exactly the perfectly well meaning logic which leads to everyone expecting someone else to be looking out for them, and then, by extension, when they walk under a falling tree or trip over a loose paving slab, it's everyone's fault but their own...

 

If my groundie walks under me when I'm chucking stuff down, it's his fault and I give him a rollocking.... If a member of the public did the same, they'd also get short shrift.... no doubt I'd get sent down for not digging a moat, rolling out razor wire, erecting a PA system and employing dog patrols, but morally, it would still be the fault of the plank who didn't look beyond the end of his nose that he suffered whatever injuries he suffered...

[felixthelogchopper]

That's not a great example, even the most moronic member of our illustrious public should be able to spot some of the signs of there being something not quite right about that situation which may start to jingle faint alarm bells..... does no one look up anymore...?!

 

I still maintain that we are all responsible for our own personal safety... if it's a windy day then look up at the trees... if they're moving a lot, don't walk too close to them. You really don't need a diploma in arboriculture to make that judgement.

 

Unfortunately the example you described is exactly the perfectly well meaning logic which leads to everyone expecting someone else to be looking out for them, and then, by extension, when they walk under a falling tree or trip over a loose paving slab, it's everyone's fault but their own...

 

If my groundie walks under me when I'm chucking stuff down, it's his fault and I give him a rollocking.... If a member of the public did the same, they'd also get short shrift.... no doubt I'd get sent down for not digging a moat, rolling out razor wire, erecting a PA system and employing dog patrols, but morally, it would still be the fault of the plank who didn't look beyond the end of his nose that he suffered whatever injuries he suffered...

 

This is where we disagree. You see no difference between the knowledge levels of a professional arb and an untrained member of the public. Have you never relied on the expert opinion of somebody on a subject which you know little about? The law of Tort, ie liability for actions/negligence, is based around the word 'reasonable'. If somebody takes reasonable steps to prevent an accident then they are not liable. The level of reasonableness varies from case to case. If an accident is highly unlikely then it would be unreasonable to expect extreme measures to prevent it but a more likely accident would mean that preventative measures should be taken. In this case, where a wooded area is open to the general public, it is not unreasonable to expect a reasonable duty of care to include a tree inspection regime to assess possible hazards, almost a tree MOT test if you like. If a driver caused an accident because they had failed to maintain their vehicle, surely you would agree that was their fault? Or would you say that the victim of their negligence was taking their chances by using roads which we all know can be dangerous?

[WorcsWuss]

I agree with you in principal, the problem is, where to draw the line.

I do however disagree that you should only make a judgement on whether a situation is safe if you're professionally trained.

Contrary to the opinion many regularly form of me, I don't know everything... but that doesn't stop me applying some basic sanity checks to every situation I find myself in... But even where I have NO knowledge of a subject or situation [i'm sure there are plenty of them, I just can't think of any off the top of my head!] I make a huge point of trying to be intelligent enough to not die. In fact, I'm not a qualified arborist, but I climb and dismantle trees based much of the time on common sense.... and the burning desire to go home to my kids at the end of the day....

 

If I see a lorry with a potentially wobbly load approaching me when I'm driving.... I keep an eye on it, make sure I don't get boxed in by a slow car in front, keep and eye out for an escape route should I need it... the fact that the lorry driver might go to jail because I was killed after a strap breaks causing 60 tonnes of steel to flatten my car doesn't really help me.

 

If I'm walking down some steps in a shopping centre, I look at the floor occasionally, make sure there aren't loose surfaces or things I might trip over. Because even if I do sue the council, I'll still have looked a complete knob in front of all the jailbait that hangs out around mobile phone shops.... I don't want to be on Youtube!

 

If I'm on a building site, I make sure I'm not going to walk under someone accidentally knocking some debris off a scaffold or into the swing zone of a digger.

 

I want to live, and the only person who REALLY gives a toss about making sure that continues to happen is me... If I have a lapse in concentration or fail to identify grave dangers to my person [even those well outside my knowledge base] and I end up dead, I'm the one who pays, so responsibility for preventing that always falls to me.

 

This isn't making a detailed assessment on the condition of a tree, this is just looking at the wider situation and making a common sense judgement on whether or not it's a safe one to put yourself into... If you put your tree MOT into practice, every single entity on the planet would need to be certified, double checked and regularly inspected. And the word accident would be struck from the dictionary... like it has with the police...

 

Or am I totally alone in looking out for myself? Should I just rely on someone else's risk assessment to keep me alive [or otherwise] instead, like Mr Average generally seems to do these days...?

Edited May 16, 2012 by WorcsWuss

[felixthelogchopper]

I agree with you in principal, the problem is, where to draw the line.

I do however disagree that you should only make a judgement on whether a situation is safe if you're professionally trained.

Contrary to the opinion many regularly form of me, I don't know everything... but that doesn't stop me applying some basic sanity checks to every situation I find myself in... But even where I have NO knowledge of a subject or situation [i'm sure there are plenty of them, I just can't think of any off the top of my head!] I make a huge point of trying to be intelligent enough to not die. In fact, I'm not a qualified arborist, but I climb and dismantle trees based much of the time on common sense.... and the burning desire to go home to my kids at the end of the day....

 

If I see a lorry with a potentially wobbly load approaching me when I'm driving.... I keep an eye on it, make sure I don't get boxed in by a slow car in front, keep and eye out for an escape route should I need it... the fact that the lorry driver might go to jail because I was killed after a strap breaks causing 60 tonnes of steel to flatten my car doesn't really help me.

 

If I'm walking down some steps in a shopping centre, I look at the floor occasionally, make sure there aren't loose surfaces or things I might trip over. Because even if I do sue the council, I'll still have looked a complete knob in front of all the jailbait that hangs out around mobile phone shops.... I don't want to be on Youtube!

 

If I'm on a building site, I make sure I'm not going to walk under someone accidentally knocking some debris off a scaffold or into the swing zone of a digger.

 

I want to live, and the only person who REALLY gives a toss about making sure that continues to happen is me... If I have a lapse in concentration or fail to identify grave dangers to my person [even those well outside my knowledge base] and I end up dead, I'm the one who pays, so responsibility for preventing that always falls to me.

 

This isn't making a detailed assessment on the condition of a tree, this is just looking at the wider situation and making a common sense judgement on whether or not it's a safe one to put yourself into... If you put your tree MOT into practice, every single entity on the planet would need to be certified, double checked and regularly inspected. And the word accident would be struck from the dictionary... like it has with the police...

 

Or am I totally alone in looking out for myself? Should I just rely on someone else's risk assessment to keep me alive [or otherwise] instead, like Mr Average generally seems to do these days...?

 

I agree with your examples of pure common sense. Basic observation of where you are walking is nothing that requires expert opinion in everyday life. I don't know why this tree failed or whether it was something that would have been shown up by inspection. My point about tree inspection was that trees in areas open to the general public should be checked to make sure they are safe, as I believe generally happens. Not all dangers are as blindingly obvious as a trip hazard or unstable load and, whether you agree or not with its existence, legislation exists in the form of the Occupier's Liability Act. The line of responsibility is slightly dynamic, being based on precedent as is much of our civil law, being highly reliant on the eloquence of the respective sides' barristers.

Finally, I accept your point that punishing an offender would not bring the victim back but that does not mean that they should not be held to account for their actions. If you extrapolate your point, it would mean that murderers should go unprosecuted as it wouldn't bring back their victims.

[Pedroski]

I remember when I was a kid, if it was windy and we were in woods or near trees, we would always be aware of the fact that something might fall on us. I think it was called common sense or something.

[WorcsWuss]

Finally, I accept your point that punishing an offender would not bring the victim back but that does not mean that they should not be held to account for their actions. If you extrapolate your point, it would mean that murderers should go unprosecuted as it wouldn't bring back their victims.

 

You're right of course, and we should definitely be responsible, and punished, should our actions adversely affect others.

As you rightly point out though, punishing offenders does not bring the victim back, and in many cases, such as murder or assault, there is no way of the victim preventing these things from happening themselves.

 

But in most of the cases brought by the HSE or, heaven forbid, the ambulance chasers, many of these incidents could have been avoided through the application of a little common sense or even just spacial awareness. It is encouraging people to acquire the skills necessary to appraise situations they find themselves in to maintain their own personal safety, which will prevent future occurences, not the HSE throwing their legal weight around.

 

Even 'breaches of health & safety law' by companies who fail to provide the correct equipment to staff who then get injured must surely be viewed from the perspective that, if this was such a dangerous occurrence that the company, who failed to identify it from the isolation of their office, should be prosecuted, then what kind of IDIOT was it who actually went ahead and worked in that way and ended up seriously injured? I would NEVER do anything dangerous just because my employer hadn't told me otherwise.... I've made it into my 30's following that rule...!

 

Prosecuting someone, anyone, because the law is set up such that it is deemed to have failed without apportioning blame to someone, does nothing to keep people out of what, to many, are obviously dangerous situations or prevent them from tripping over their own feet... basic life lessons teach this... surely it's not to much to expect such pearls of wisdom as 'look where you're going' and 'don't walk under trees on windy days' to be passed down through the generations...?

[felixthelogchopper]

You're right of course, and we should definitely be responsible, and punished, should our actions adversely affect others.

As you rightly point out though, punishing offenders does not bring the victim back, and in many cases, such as murder or assault, there is no way of the victim preventing these things from happening themselves.

 

But in most of the cases brought by the HSE or, heaven forbid, the ambulance chasers, many of these incidents could have been avoided through the application of a little common sense or even just spacial awareness. It is encouraging people to acquire the skills necessary to appraise situations they find themselves in to maintain their own personal safety, which will prevent future occurences, not the HSE throwing their legal weight around.

 

Even 'breaches of health & safety law' by companies who fail to provide the correct equipment to staff who then get injured must surely be viewed from the perspective that, if this was such a dangerous occurrence that the company, who failed to identify it from the isolation of their office, should be prosecuted, then what kind of IDIOT was it who actually went ahead and worked in that way and ended up seriously injured? I would NEVER do anything dangerous just because my employer hadn't told me otherwise.... I've made it into my 30's following that rule...!

 

Prosecuting someone, anyone, because the law is set up such that it is deemed to have failed without apportioning blame to someone, does nothing to keep people out of what, to many, are obviously dangerous situations or prevent them from tripping over their own feet... basic life lessons teach this... surely it's not to much to expect such pearls of wisdom as 'look where you're going' and 'don't walk under trees on windy days' to be passed down through the generations...?

 

So how would you treat the difference between an innocent victim of murder and the murder of somebody who had knowingly put themself in the way of danger, for example by involvement in criminal activity? Do you suggest that there should exist a two-tier system of tariff for sentencing? By that reckoning, many of the most dangerous killers would have had shorter sentences due to their choice of victim.

As for 'the idiot' that worked in a dangerous way, there are some people unfortunate enough to be stuck in situations where they have no choice but to do whatever they need to in order to keep their job. Do you intend that they get no protection?

Finally, as I previously said, I have no idea why this tree failed. I don't know whether it was something blatantly obvious to anybody who bothered to open their eyes or something that could only be discovered by expert examination. My point is that since Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932, it has been recognised in law that we all owe a duty of care to those around us. This duty of care can be heightened in different circumstances, for example in this case by the defendants obligations to visitors under The Occupiers' Liability Acts(1957 and 1984), but not ignored. The classic cases on this circumstance are Miller v Jackson and Bolton v Stone.