another tree injury on msn such a shame

[Pedroski]

"Duty of care" requires that all steps that are "reasonably practicable" must be taken to protect the public. "Reasonably practicable" is a much narrower term than "physically possible", and involves balancing the risks of an occurrence against the time/cost/effort to reduce the risk. The HSE will be the ones to decide whether or not it would have been reasonably practicable to have every single tree dealt with, and whether or not inspection could have prevented the accident. Without knowing more about exactly what happened and why, it's not possible for any of us here to decide whether or not it would have been reasonably practicable for the owners to have done more.

[felixthelogchopper]

"Duty of care" requires that all steps that are "reasonably practicable" must be taken to protect the public. "Reasonably practicable" is a much narrower term than "physically possible", and involves balancing the risks of an occurrence against the time/cost/effort to reduce the risk. The HSE will be the ones to decide whether or not it would have been reasonably practicable to have every single tree dealt with, and whether or not inspection could have prevented the accident. Without knowing more about exactly what happened and why, it's not possible for any of us here to decide whether or not it would have been reasonably practicable for the owners to have done more.

 

Glad we agree.

[WorcsWuss]

Glad we agree.

 

God you two, get a room.....! :lol:

 

I agree in the main as well.... bearing in mind there are already effective mechanisms in place to protect employees should they lose their job by refusing to do something unsafe... the tribunal system. So that's not really an excuse for working in a dangerous way...

And a murderer is not the same as someone who failed to inspect every tree in their park every other week, or year or whatever.... Murder comes with intent, negligence generally doesn't, but courts decide whether there was.

And imminent murder disguises itself better than trees on a windy day... Although as Pete pointed out, we don't know the specific ins and outs of this case...

 

My vote still goes for looking out for number one though, because no one else will until something's happened to you...

[Pete Bannister]

One of the reasons an incident such as this may go to court is to 'test' it. Court procedures often provide the best means we have at our disposal of revealing evidence, having it clearly expressed considered and discussed by an expert or experts and then judged.

Whilst it may not be the case in this instance; it has been known in recent history in cases of serious injury or death for it be necessary to establish 'negligence' in order for insurance to pay out.

[felixthelogchopper]

God you two, get a room.....! :lol:

 

I agree in the main as well.... bearing in mind there are already effective mechanisms in place to protect employees should they lose their job by refusing to do something unsafe... the tribunal system. So that's not really an excuse for working in a dangerous way...

And a murderer is not the same as someone who failed to inspect every tree in their park every other week, or year or whatever.... Murder comes with intent, negligence generally doesn't, but courts decide whether there was.

And imminent murder disguises itself better than trees on a windy day... Although as Pete pointed out, we don't know the specific ins and outs of this case...

 

My vote still goes for looking out for number one though, because no one else will until something's happened to you...

 

Jealous

 

The problem with tribunals is they work too slowly to help those who live from one pay cheque to the next. My point about the murderers was to illustrate that whether the victim had put themself in harm's way or not, the punishment would be the same just as the intent of the killer was. I don't deny that cases such as people suing because they burnt themselves on hot food are thoroughly ridiculous but what I am saying in that there is a responsibility in this case to maintain a safe environment to a reasonable degree for visitors. As we have both said, we don't know the nitty gritty of the case but it makes for an interesting discussion.

[WorcsWuss]

Jealous

 

The problem with tribunals is they work too slowly to help those who live from one pay cheque to the next. My point about the murderers was to illustrate that whether the victim had put themself in harm's way or not, the punishment would be the same just as the intent of the killer was. I don't deny that cases such as people suing because they burnt themselves on hot food are thoroughly ridiculous but what I am saying in that there is a responsibility in this case to maintain a safe environment to a reasonable degree for visitors. As we have both said, we don't know the nitty gritty of the case but it makes for an interesting discussion.

 

Very true, and it could also well be that the injured parties were absolutely on the ball except for the split second the limb fell, they may even have been trying to leave an area they decided was unsafe under the circumstances....

Group hug....

[David Humphries]

BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show are going to be talking to the zoo owner about this case today

 

 

BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine

 

 

Show starts at 12, but piece on the tree failure starts at 12:32, then available on iPlayer later

 

 

 

.

[RobArb]

Listening:biggrin:

 

Sent from my Galaxy S2

[David Humphries]

Interesting and relatively unique view of an incidence of tree failure from an owners point of view.

 

Guess thats due in part to Miss Richardson's media background.

 

 

 

 

.

[RobArb]

Also, another tree accident, although awful for all involved, hyped up by the media... Again....

 

Sent from my Galaxy S2