UKTC Archive

Re: Hidden defects

Subject: Re: Hidden defects
From: Jerry Ross
Date: Jul 27 2020 15:38:48
Mike, David, please let's not disappear down this hole again as there seems to be no possibility of there being any light at the end of it. The subject has been discussed at length previously and as the twain seem unlikely to meet, perhaps you should each go your own way. I do appreciate that it's an important subject; it's just that it's never going to be resolved in this forum. I suggest your views would be better aired in something like the Arb Journal, where there's more room to expand and less opportunity for things to get over-heated.


On 27/07/2020 15:16, David Evans wrote:
<<I'm not sure that there's much need for a discussion on semantics.  To my mind 
our job is to look at a tree carefully (inspection) and assess any potential defects or 
symptoms of defects (assessment) to quantify - to the best of our ability - the risk.  
It's all part of the same process.  However, we do need to find the potential defects in 
order to be able to assess them.>>

I'm sure there's absolutely nothing I agree with here.

Thanks.  It's been a useful further exploration of what I think is 
risk-averse, hazard-driven thinking that often comes with managing secondary 
risk (the risk of a claim against the 'inspector') with hindsight bias.  
Rather than managing the primary risk (from tree failure) which the duty 
holder is responsible for.  It demonstrates why the duty holder having a 
strategy that tells us what 'our job is', is so important.


Acer Ventura

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits