Council claim - does this tree suffer decay?

[woodworm]

:congrats:

[treequip]

Whoever wrote that statement, did so from a nice warm office without visiting site.

 

If someone did visit site, they were either blind, drunk, drugged up, incompetent, lacking any experience whatsoever of trees, looking at the wrong tree or just a complete and utter idiot

 

Or following council policy and denying all responsibility in the first instance

[felixthelogchopper]

Negligence claims are decided on balance of probability rather than absolute proof so you need to prove it's more likely than not that they have been less than careful in their tree management. ( Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd ). By providing proof that there are trees in a similarly hazardous condition in the council's jurisdiction, you can show that they were likely to have neglected this tree too.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

no way felix, this tree is on its own merits, anyone suggesting that they will have a case based on others near by is nuts!

 

I doubt that the weakened union was forseable as the rot was all internal, the only possibility is that there is a slight occlusion rib to one sidebut you would not have picked up on that in a routine inspection at all.

 

Sorry to pee on the bonfire but forseable NO, not on your nelly. A lot of trees dropped branches this spring and summer, rapid growth early on and heavy rainfall adding weight to branches not yet adapted to their growing loadings, remotley suspect unions failing due to the extra burdens all over the place, not at all forseable.

[felixthelogchopper]

no way felix, this tree is on its own merits, anyone suggesting that they will have a case based on others near by is nuts!

 

I doubt that the weakened union was forseable as the rot was all internal, the only possibility is that there is a slight occlusion rib to one sidebut you would not have picked up on that in a routine inspection at all.

 

Sorry to pee on the bonfire but forseable NO, not on your nelly. A lot of trees dropped branches this spring and summer, rapid growth early on and heavy rainfall adding weight to branches not yet adapted to their growing loadings, remotley suspect unions failing due to the extra burdens all over the place, not at all forseable.

 

Ward v Tesco is about establishing that a proper method of hazard control was absent, or at least poorly applied. It is not about foreseeability. The claimant, Ward, slipped on a yoghurt in a branch of the defendants store. While she was unable to prove that the yoghurt had been on the floor for any amount of time, she was able to rubbish Tesco's claims that they cleaned up all spills promptly by visiting on subsequent occasions and noting that spills were not cleaned up in the given time. The judge found for Ward on the balance of probability that Tesco had not applied their regime of spill management. By showing that there are un-managed trees in the council's sphere of responsibility, the OP can similarly challenge the council's defence.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

trees dont stand a F'in chance

[Mark Bolam]

Council still liable though Tone, surely?

 

As said, I'd leave this one to my insurers.

[Dean Lofthouse]

The branch has simply fallen due to the extremely bad weather that we had on this day.

 

This is the statement I was referring to BTW

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Council still liable though Tone, surely?

 

As said, I'd leave this one to my insurers.

 

The whole point of the NTSG (national tree safety group) work and recently published document was to ensure that unforseable stuff is just that, unforseable and not subject to liability.

 

Its this whole lets find blame culture that results in trees being felled JUST in case, and do you honestly think in the future big trees or trees full stop will be planted again when they are felled because of complaints or worse lawsuits like this?

 

There will be NO trees in towns, they die in 30 years due to abuse as it it, add this crap attitude and what chance have they got? NONE ZERO.

 

when its obviously forseable, a long term flaw fault, body language and forseable then fine, they deserve to get done, but in this case?

 

on the other hand, did they have these trees assesded annualy? nope, probably not.

 

so i get both sides, but THIS was not forseable, no external signs or fruitbodies.

[MATTMOSS]

no way felix, this tree is on its own merits, anyone suggesting that they will have a case based on others near by is nuts!

 

I doubt that the weakened union was forseable as the rot was all internal, the only possibility is that there is a slight occlusion rib to one sidebut you would not have picked up on that in a routine inspection at all.

 

Sorry to pee on the bonfire but forseable NO, not on your nelly. A lot of trees dropped branches this spring and summer, rapid growth early on and heavy rainfall adding weight to branches not yet adapted to their growing loadings, remotley suspect unions failing due to the extra burdens all over the place, not at all forseable.

 

I agree with tony 100% not because I work for a Council but as an arborist aswell, but I dont think that would be picked up on a routine inspection at that stage and therefore it could not be foreseen, s ther is no case of neglect! . I think you should just claim on your insurance for this.

I do feel sorry for you but I think its just one of those things in this instance.

matt