______________________________________________________________________
Career opportunities with Tim Moya Associates
SENIOR ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY �33,158- �38,791
ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY �25,197 - �30,657
Please visit our website, give us a call or send in your CV
www.tma-consultants.co.uk/jobs.php
______________________________________________________________________
SC insertions
-------------- Original message from "David Lofthouse"
<David.Lofthouse@xxxxxxx.gov.uk>: --------------
______________________________________________________________________
Career opportunities with Tim Moya Associates
SENIOR ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY £33,158- £38,791
ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY £25,197 - £30,657
Please visit our website, give us a call or send in your CV
www.tma-consultants.co.uk/jobs.php
______________________________________________________________________I've
heard some almost glowing reports of the decision in Atkins/Scott. I can't
agree with them, certainly not, Paul, that its refreshing.
Ian Murat's evidence is 'unpersuasive and unimpressive' because, among
other reasons, he does not believe that ' a quick visual check is
sufficient
(examination) for a tree by a busy A road'. Please bear in mind the fact
that in this case he was actually correct and it
wasn't sufficient.
Sir James (Scott) noted that it would NOT have been unduly onerous to have
had
formal recorded inspection of the trees by the road but the judge thought
it was
fine that there were no systematic, recorded or regular inspections. The
woodsmen were often in the area and WOULD HAVE looked!
I would not wish to criticise any of the defendant's evidence or that of
his
woodsmen, but given the fact that everyone on earth agrees that we need to
demonstrate a SYSTEMATIC approach to our inspections,
SC Now let's consider your comment in its context. If indeed everyone on
earth or significant portions of it agrees on the need to demonstrate a
systematic approach isn't it because of court judgments that have sent us
running in fear of not being sufficiently systematic? Is this need for
systems about results or about avoiding breach on paper? In the sort of
situation where the woodmen (arbs, highways types, whatever) are looking at
the trees with frequency in the course of other works is the level of risk
resulting demonstrably and significantly lower that with some "system?" Is
the judge re-introducing common sense here? Is it, after all, only the truly
"fecked" specimens (going back to that conversation with Acer and Mike) that
are predictable risks?
If we earthlings all agree with a chain of court decisons and then the courts
look at that agreement as a standard of care, and the cycle keeps repeating
do we set higher and higher thresholds of duty that deliver smaller and
smaller increments of safety? And what if the first link in that chain was
wrong?
It is quite likely in some cases a defendant is let off easy for being a
"nice chap." It is also likely that in other cases defendants are treated
harshly because the plaintiffs present such a sympathetic or pitiful picture.
even if the system has
flaws, I am amazed at the cavalier attitude of the judge to the lack of
system
present in this case - arguably because he sees the defendant as clearly
such a
'good chap'.
I don't necessarily disagree with the outcome but there are elements of the
Judgement which are arbitrary and to my mind thoroughly subjective.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S Watts [mailto:pswatts@xxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 19 August 2008 14:33
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Atkins - Scott - Judgement
______________________________________________________________________
Career opportunities with Tim Moya Associates
SENIOR ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY GBP 33,158- GBP 38,791
ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTANT SALARY GBP 25,197 - GBP 30,657
Please visit our website, give us a call or send in your CV
www.tma-consultants.co.uk/jobs.php
______________________________________________________________________
The recent [last week] Judgement in the case of Atkins - v - Sir J Scott
makes fascinating reading and is, in my opinion, essential reference.
In this instance, the Judge has clear perception and an objective mind in
relation to the massive differences between the two Expert witnesses. For
the Judge to drill down through the multitude of reasons why one of the
Experts lacked consistency and credibility, is certainly a damming
indictment and also rather refreshing. Certainly a wakeup call for some
sectors of the profession.
I would strongly recommend this and do not be put off by the 30 page length
[The McCartney - v - Mills Judgement was almost 60 pages].
I believe that Dealga has made the paper available to the AIE and has
kindly put up a download on their site. The link is:
http://www.aie.org.uk/resources/case_law/aie_case_atkins_scott.html
Or if anyone has a problem, mail me and I will copy by return.
Regards
Paul S Watts
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
^**********************************************************************^
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This email may contain
information that is confidential and may contain sensitive or protectively
marked information up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. This
communication may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance
with
relevant legislation. If you have received this email in error you must not
copy, disclose or make any further use of the information contained within
it.
Instead we request that you notify the system manager.
Postmaster@xxxxxxx.gov.uk
http://www.merton.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
