UKTC Archive

Hi Jeremy

As a follow on clarification to the low occupancy = low risk question, 
because of the limitations in attachments on the UKTC.

Back in the day of your '1:10,000 time bomb' presentation.  You showed the 
attached image of small diameter deadwood in an Ash over a footpath, and have 
the following text in your presentation notes.

"Furthermore, because the path was used by the public, albeit infrequently, 
the combination of that use and the inevitable failure meant that the 
potential for harm was reasonably foreseeable."

You painted a picture of how, if the risk was realised and harm arose from 
deadwood falling, an expert witness could make a case for a claimant in the 
court.

Is low occupancy in your risk frameworks some point lower than 'infrequent'?

Or is 'infrequent' the same as low occupancy, and you've updated your opinion 
on small diameter deadwood (or any sized tree and branch in any condition) 
causing 'reasonably foreseeable harm' on infrequently used woodland paths?

Cheers

Acer Ventura



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk

Jeremy Barrell Low Occupancy Deadwood.png
Description: PNG image