Stagecoach case - scary, tree surgeons be warned?

[daltontrees]

Someone on UKTC just flagged up a recent law case Stagecoach v Steel and Hinds, the written judgement goes into huge depth am ong other things as to whether a tree surgeon who had done work in agarden should have spotted rot on a tree and have brought it to the owners attention. The tree fell over later across the railway line and a train hit it. Damages £1/3M. It's scary because although the tree surgeon was off the hook if he had been qualified in arboriculture he might not have been in the clear.

 

These law cases probably don't affect most tree surgeons acting purely as contractor, but there seems to be some implied professional duty to alert customers to defects in trees that you aren't even there to look at.

 

If anyone wants me to post the transcript I can do, or maybe attempt a summary of the relevant tree surgeon bits.

[Jon Heuch]

The judgment is available to all from the baillii website.

 

https://tinyurl.com/kno42gp

 

The judgment does have some interesting comments (professional arboriculturalist or tree surgeon?) but also a useful summary of a landowner's duty that I will think we will see again, even it doesn't provide a legal precedent:

 

From a tree surgery point of view the issue seemed to be whether the tree surgeon had undertaken an inspection or not, and the duty of the tree surgeon under contract to undertake limited work.

 

67 "there is no obligation to call in an expert to examine trees, unless

there is reason to believe that they may be unsafe"

 

68 "Accordingly, I consider that the principles relating to a

landowner's duty in respect of trees can be summarised as follows:

 

(a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable

and prudent landowner (Caminer);

 

(b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden

(Lambourn) or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature (Noble).

But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him

and which he can see with his own eyes (Brown);

 

© A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out

preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis

(Micklewright and the first instance cases noted in paragraph 66 above);

 

(d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for

fuller inspections by arboriculturalists (Caminer, Quinn). This will

usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have

revealed a potential problem (Micklewright, Charlesworth and Percy),

although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on

the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections

(Caminer). A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only

if there is some form of 'trigger' is also in accordance with the published

guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above.

 

(e) The resources available to the householder may have a

relevance (Leakey) to the way in which the duty is discharged."

 

Paras 88 + ..tree surgeon or professional arboriculturalist ?.. well that

will get the chattering classes going!

 

Paras 99+...duty to warn..some interesting comments.

 

Jon

[adam pike]

nice find very interesting reading I think we will all look a little closer at trees after this would not want to have my arse dragged through the court like that

[daltontrees]

Paras 88 + ..tree surgeon or professional arboriculturalist ?.. well that

will get the chattering classes going!

 

Paras 99+...duty to warn..some interesting comments.

 

Jon

 

Good posting, Jon. It is these 2 bits that I think should be noted by tree surgeons purporting to be giving advice. There is a somewhat alarming extent to which it doesn't matter whether you don't say you're not giving professional advice, that you're only taking instructions prior to pricing and being appointed.

[daltontrees]

nice find very interesting reading I think we will all look a little closer at trees after this would not want to have my arse dragged through the court like that

 

It may be as simple as making sure the customer knows that you are not there to assess the trees, you're there just to clarify instructions and price, as happened in the case. The more you look, even if that's not why you are there, the more it might be implied tha tthe customer relied on your arboricultural knowledge and relied on it rightly or wrongly, with or without payment.

 

I think it puts the 'free advice' contractors in a position where they have to caveat their advice very carefully, or don't give any advice. The public knows little or nothing about teh distinction between tree surgeons and arboriculturists and they are apt to assume a tree surgeon is both. 'Surgeon' has for me always carried a pseudo-professional connotation. I'm not having a go at anyone for using the title, just be careful?

 

Speaking of which, anyone relying on my comments or interpretation here on Arbtalk does so, as ever, at their own risk.

[ArthurBottlesworth]

I know solicitors have to be very careful

 

If they are in the pub and someone asks them a question and they just shoot off an answer, they can be liable if the advice was crap .......

[munky0211]

I'm working on a council amenity town contract.

Say nothing,joe public,will try to have your pants down for blame

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[David Humphries]

Perhaps the claiment (in this case Stagecoach) who are aware (through the inspection of their own tree populations and as such are or employ 'tree management experts') could advise their neighbours by way of a concerted publicity campaign of the defects/hazards that may be hidden under thick ivy growth.

 

How hard would it really be for private tree owners to control the growth of ivy on trees in close proximity to targets like railways/roads etc.....

 

There seems to be so little interpretation from the tree/forestry industry to the public regarding trees and their hazard potential.

 

 

Although the Kew cedar fatality didn't involve ivy, we surely should be asking ourselves why the public do not understand the basic risks in relation to their own (and their property's) proximity to trees during inclement weather and what we are doing, or not doing, about this?

 

 

.

[Tom D]

FWIW I have been asked to work on a privately owned tree, the work having been requested by network rail...

[openspaceman]

 

How hard would it really be for private tree owners to control the growth of ivy on trees in close proximity to targets like railways/roads etc.....

 

 

.

 

This seems to be the crux to me, and I think ivy has great amenity and conservation value, this tree was on what was formerly railway land, traditionally railway land was kept clear of trees by hand cutting. As a result an awful lot of rail side trees are of coppice origin. This in itself increases the hazard as the lever arm increases. This one had already lost one stem toward the garden and it was decay from this breakage that had weakened the stump and exacerbated the fundamental base union of a coppiced stump.

 

The other lesson is that decay mechanisms that cause this sort of structural failure need not show any symptoms in the crown or foliage.