Can anyone please help with this serious accident?

[Mull]

There is no such thing as an accident. someone is always to blame! I was told this by the head of H+S at a big player in the utility companies:001_rolleyes:..... He did have the job of going with the police, to tell a lady that her husband wouldn't be coming home again. Not a job I would like to do..... That's before we start on the reason!

 

 

An RTA( road traffic accident) is now an RTC, road traffic collision! No accidents anymore guys.

[Jesse]

- Tree Consultant

[Mortimer Firewood]

Pm sent

[Jesse]

The link did not work, i was trying to link it to The occupiers liability act 1984, well worth looking at, the points i would take interest in, who owns the tree, when was it last inspected, important considerations - Ganaderma , looks like adspersum on the photo, and the trees location, very High risk target, over a road, and a place such as a bus stop. If it is a Council tree, i would say they want shafting, no excesses, the tree should have documentation listing records of inspections, if they used the QTRA method with an inexperienced TO this sort of thing IS going to happen. If its privately owned, they could always argue that the tree looked ok but under cross examination they would not truly of fore filled there obligations as that type of fungus would of been present 12 mths ago, even 2 years ago looking at the size of the bracket and extent of decay in the cross section of the trunk

[Jesse]

Should of also asked, what physical evidence has been retained ? the bracket ? or just photographic.

[Noggin1988]

Hi Jesse, I believe it is just photographic evidence but will find out some more info...the tree is owned by the parish council and like you say was directly under the bus stop! You really know your stuff! Do you think this fungus had been overlooked then, looks like it had been riddled for a while? Surely if it is so rotten in the inside this would take several years not just one?

And with regards to Shane if this had happened to a family member of yours would you not want to follow it up more to point the finger. Or are you telling me you would just brush it off as an accident and move on? "Oh well **** happens!?" I don't think so

[Eddy_t]

Ganoderma is quite slow at decay, to knock down a lime that large, you're talking at least 5 years.

It would also be high priority due to targets beneath.

There should be historical survey/inspection records. If the inspection is within 5 years and notes the fungus, it's the tree-owners fault, if the survey is over 5, the same again. If it's within 5 years, but has no mention of the fungi, it's the surveyor.

But, if the fungus is noted within the 5 years, but the tree has a TPO, you're going to have to chase up any applications made for the tree.

[Shane]

Hi Jesse, I believe it is just photographic evidence but will find out some more info...the tree is owned by the parish council and like you say was directly under the bus stop! You really know your stuff! Do you think this fungus had been overlooked then, looks like it had been riddled for a while? Surely if it is so rotten in the inside this would take several years not just one?

And with regards to Shane if this had happened to a family member of yours would you not want to follow it up more to point the finger. Or are you telling me you would just brush it off as an accident and move on? "Oh well **** happens!?" I don't think so

 

I wondered when that would come up.

 

When my brother in law was killed aged 21 the road was dreadful (potholes, recent previous deaths on same section). We saw no mileage in sueing the arse of the LA or the other driver. We were devastated but did not call the ambulance chasers - does that answer your question?

 

And don't moan when someone chases you for compensation when one of their children gets hurt playing in your unsafe garden.

 

Good luck, you are entitled to go about YOUR business however you wish.

So am I - Freedom of speech!

[Chris at eden]

The link did not work, i was trying to link it to The occupiers liability act 1984, well worth looking at, the points i would take interest in, who owns the tree, when was it last inspected, important considerations - Ganaderma , looks like adspersum on the photo, and the trees location, very High risk target, over a road, and a place such as a bus stop. If it is a Council tree, i would say they want shafting, no excesses, the tree should have documentation listing records of inspections, if they used the QTRA method with an inexperienced TO this sort of thing IS going to happen. If its privately owned, they could always argue that the tree looked ok but under cross examination they would not truly of fore filled there obligations as that type of fungus would of been present 12 mths ago, even 2 years ago looking at the size of the bracket and extent of decay in the cross section of the trunk

 

 

The occupier liability act does not apply here if I am reading those pictures correctly. Both versions (1957 and 1984) place a duty on land owners to maintain there trees in such a state that they do not impose an unreasonable risk to visitors of their land, 57 for those invited, amended by 84 to include trespassers. It looks to me that the tree has fallen onto adjacent land in which case the duty is covered under common law. i.e. via court precedent. You would be better served reading the NTSG guidance as that gives info on inspection frequency and all other aspects.

[Jesse]

Few more points. First i have not read into every detail, just commenting on what i can see and what i know.

1. If the tree was inspected in the past, 3 years ago, was the decay and fungi / bracket not noted, photo 3 shows the extent of decay, photo 11 the bracket, possibly Ganoderma species .

2. As Eddy t noted, going on the photos and time it would take to develop and grow to that size its been present for 5 years or more, i just counted the annual growth ridges on the bracket (photo 11) and suggest its bracket age is closer to 9 years.

3. Lime has little resistance to decay fungi so inspections should have been more frequent, at least every year after discovering the problem.

Main point i am trying to make, or point of negligence -

Any recommendations made when the tree was last inspected should have included a time scale to carry out any recommendations for work, and in view of the HIGH value target area, a main road and a bus stop , a recommendation to inspect the tree on a more regular basis, at least every 12 or even every 6 months there after.

Even only going on the photos it is very clear that the tree has been in very poor structural condition for a long time, don't forget, the tree came over due to major stem failure, with a very reduced sail , (No leaves present) so there must have been extensive decay present.

Last point of interest, the Council responded very quickly to clearing the stump !(evidence)