Neglect or misfortune?

[armybloke]

Found this article in our free paper.

 

The claim is that the council is neglectful of its trees and is looking to take legal action. Is this just a matter of tree failure due to natural causes or is it a matter of missed inspections?

 

Predicable consequences maybe? Or have we built so much around trees that we have endangered their well-being. Like animals that people so often claim as a nuisance - where else can they go when human activity has removed their natural habitat and replaced it with one of hard structure and little foraging potential other than the discarded take-away?

 

Discuss!

03011102.PDF

[10 Bears]

I suppose it depends on a couple of assumptions I will have to make - but Ill list them for transparency:

 

1. Is it actually the local councils, or perhaps highways, or other?

2. Was the incident foreseeable eg signs of decay etc?

3. Is there a defensible tree inspection system in place, and if so when was it last inspected?

4. Are there any compounding factors eg recent building/trenching works that have excavated roots?

 

So if there answers are Yes, Yes, No (dunno?), No - then it is likely that the council are negligent in their duties. If, however the first answer is No, then liability passes to whoever is the owner/agent/occupier.

 

A key part of negligence are the following elements:

 

1. Someone has a controlling mind (of the situation ie are responsible)

2. They ought to have been aware

3. They are professionally/legally duty bound to do something about it

4. They have not exercised their duties properly - or at all.

 

If these four points cant be proven, then there is no negligence.

 

Accidents happen, and no where is absolutely safe of course, but with regards to tree management by the council, they are legally bound to protect trees, and also protect the public from potential dangers associated with them. So, possibly neglect as you say, but there needs to be a bit more information about it.

 

A squashed car can be dealt with. At least he, nor anyone else was seriously hurt.

Edited June 6, 2014 by 10 Bears

[FatherJack]

Surely his first recourse is against the owner of the tree?

 

Or maybe....................he shouldn't have parked his car there:confused1:

[armybloke]

I can defend this particular council to a certain extent. I do know they have a strict management regime for inspections but you have to rely on the inspector being qualified, experienced and to have actually looked at the tree and not carried out a 'drive-by' which does happen in other local authorities (I have been told).

 

In terms of response to your list of 4 assumptions read Yes for all 4 - so now what? The bloke did end up in hospital albeit minor injuries but he is still adamant that compensation is due - although there maybe a little bit of money-grabbing as I know that this is likely to go on regardless. Where there is blame then surely there must be a claim attitude.

 

Should not have parked his car there FatherJack or maybe we should not have developed around the tree? Whichever is proven to be the better option then should we be more cautious about 'what tree where' scenario? Plant little Hawthorns and Crab Apples as street trees and hey presto problem resolved n'est ce pas?

[Dnolan9]

Its a misfortune i think.

If you say the council has strict management regime for there trees id imagine it would have been looked at in detail once in the months prior to failure but saying that at times there may not be many detectable signs of decay.

 

In college yesterday we where shown this video and it has influenced my answer above slightly [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beSkJ0HR4Yw]Exploding Oak Tree - YouTube[/ame]

 

I think freak accident and the guy looks like the sort of guy who would make a massive deal out of a freak accident to fill his pockets up.

[Gary Prentice]

Maybe someone could enlighten the 'casualty' to the number of people who die daily in vehicle accidents compared to the number who are killed annually by falling trees. Even by being that close to the falling tree he's still statistically more likely to die in his car....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or would have been if the tree hadn't crushed it:biggrin:

[10 Bears]

I think freak accident and the guy looks like the sort of guy who would make a massive deal out of a freak accident to fill his pockets up.

 

Now that's a really unfair comment - basing his likely actions on his appearance! Bear in mind that he has just gone through a near-death experience and wants people to know about it so that others don't have to suffer the same.

 

I haven't watched the video - no time today, but, you should read my points about negligence and do some research on the subject yourself (it may help with future coursework?).

 

The point is, legally speaking, that as the council are responsible in law they have a series of statutory duties to fulfil. If they don't execute those duties, then someone's nuts will be on the block and the chap who now has to take the bus is entitled to see that someone recompenses him for their failings.

 

Another comment suggests that there could have been drive-by surveys (conjecture of course), but this would not be acceptable practice, so again, he has the right to make them pay for their negligence.

[bob]

I would like to see the article but does not appear to be able to open on iPad

[Adam M]

he has the right to make them pay for their negligence.

 

He has the right to find out if they have been negligent, but just because a tree falls on his car does not mean the council have been negligent. Did SSC have an appropriate tree safety policy? Was the surveyor suitably qualified and experienced? Did the surveyor follow procedure? Did the surveyor make the right judgement based on the evidence in front of him or her, at the time of the survey? Were any works actioned in accordance with their policy?

[armybloke]

Just to answer a couple of points;

 

The article is in pdf and you should be able to read the script.

 

I do know that SCC have a robust policy of tree inspections but can not verify that this tree has been subjected to inspection by a qualified person or when it was last inspected. Regardless of either of these the tree fell as a result of natural causes whether predictable or not - so who is at fault?