UKTC Archive

Re: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust

Subject: Re: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Oct 13 2021 05:08:20
There were two links, one an article; the other the text of the decision.

I don't doubt that US courts are no "better" at this issue than those in
the UK (I did not make this argument); both seem flawed to me, particularly
in placing more stock in so-called "professional" opinion than in technical
facts of each case. "Act of God" gets a lot of play in US courts, as if,
for example, a tree failure is blamed on God because the wind happened to
be blowing at the time, despite the clear evidence that other similar trees
remained standing. Even tornadoes and hurricanes are not forceful enough to
"blow down" the stronger (more resistant to the sum of the forces acting
upon them) than sufficiently weakened specimens.

Any profession or professional worthy of the name should be enthusiastic
about improvement.

WT



On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:57 PM Russ Carlson <thearborist@xxxx.com> wrote:

[Text converted from HTML]
Wayne, the link was only the court's summary of the case and judge's
decision. My thought was that he gave far more technical detail than most
U.S. Courts do in their opinions. The judge is dealing with issues of
law, whatever side of the pond, hill, or road he is on. He provides only
the information he finds necessary to explain his decision based on the
law of the land. We may be experts at tree assessments, but the judge is
the expert on the law, and that is what counts once a case gets to that
level.

All your questions may be valid at some level. Those are questions the
experts must address, whether individually or jointly for the court.

[R]


---
Russ Carlson, RCA, BCMA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #354
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PD-0008B
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification

Tree Tech Consulting
114 Grand Canyon Court
Bear, DE 19701
302.832.1911 phone
thearborist@xxxx.com
www.tree-tech.com

Note: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the
use of the individuals(s) named in this email. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, use, or disseminate the
information contained herein or in any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this email and all attachments now, and
notify the sender. Thank you.


On 10/12/21 5:55 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

  The very devil is in the details. The argument is short on them. Arguing
  from authority has long been considered fallacious.

  Where are the inspection records? What was known to the defendant and
what
  was not known? If the inspector of record "did not remember" whether or
not
  he had or hadn't inspected the tree, what does that say about "adequacy"
of
  inspection? What was the condition of the "branch" at the point of
failure?
  Were there any signs of pre-failure defects or indirect indicators of
  stress that a professional would have or should have seen? Considering
tree
  failures as a subset of trees, what fraction of such failures occurred in
  the absence of any indicators, direct or indirect, of a trend toward
  decline or improvement in tree condition? Was a detailed post-failure
  assessment of the factors relevant to the event conducted for the record?

  WT

  On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:51 PM   oldoaktree@xxxxxxxxx.net   <
uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info  > wrote:


    A very interesting read. Useful to ponder on tree safety decisions.

    As ever, life-changing injuries are tragic and deserve the very best
    sympathy. On the other hand, do we chop down every tree that can ever
harm
    us?

    The precise diagnosis of the ins and outs of the failure would have
been
    useful for me and this bunch of armchair critics but I guess this was
not
    the matter of the case, only the presence and skill of the inspector
as far
    as I can see.

    Not that I am good in a quarrel, but I'd not like to argue with the
Judge.

    Further reading may bring another point of view, but I'm not able to
get
    to that!

    Cheers

    Dave

    -----Original Message-----
    From:     uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info         <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>    On Behalf Of Elton Watson
    Sent: 12 October 2021 18:39
    To: UK Tree Care     <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>    Subject: RE: Here
we go again: Parker v National Trust

    Thanks for posting Jon.
    Very useful.

    Elton



    Sent from my Galaxy



    -------- Original message --------
    From: Jon Heuch     <jh@xxxxxxxx.co.uk>    Date: 11/10/2021 15:54
(GMT+00:00)
    To: UK Tree Care     <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>    Subject: Here we
go again: Parker v National Trust

    Parker v National Trust



    You will find the judgment here:
https://www.blmlaw.com/images/uploaded/File/judgment_v2.pdf


    Commentary here:     https://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?l=9KXEWZP


    Jon






    --
    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


    --
    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



    --
    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






--
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




-- 
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