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 17:34:46
The fact that "inspection" was happening at all implies that there was a
recognition that a concern about tree failure potential was present, as was
the duty to inspect, with the objective of public safety.

For some reason, a failure occurred, resulting in serious injuries. A
post-failure inspection and study/report should have revealed factors
relevant to the failure, including whether or not a competent inspection
would or would not reasonably have "missed" one or more such factors. It
*appears* that the inspection "procedure" consisted of walking around
looking at trees, but since no procedure was even mentioned, much less
described, such a provisional assumption that more detail should have been
required should be considered by any court of law, not to mention tree
professionals.

WT

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:41 AM Bill Anderson <
anderson.arb.original@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

I think it's completely fair to not be able to remember inspecting a tree
Wayne. You're only likely to remember inspecting ones that had something
notable about them, which might have been a risk factor or it might have
been something else. As a favour I had a look around an outdoor activities
centre for the Girl Guides Association on Saturday, 5 days ago. (Lockdown
has hit the Scouts and Guides hard and I fear for their future.) I can't
remember anything about the trees beyond the Sycamore with Kretzsch at the
base, and the extremely fine young Tulip tree.
Bill.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 10:00, oldoaktree@xxxxxxxxx.net <
uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> wrote:

Yes very good CPD, as it comes from a very different angle than we arbs
usually clatter on at.

The first thing I'm going to do is check my website to make sure I'm not
making any outrageous claims! It was sobering to see how the appellant's
barrister used the wording and slant on the expert's website to form what
seemed to be quite a significant criticism of him, something the Judge
had
to spend time weighing up.

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 13 October 2021 09:12
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust

The judgement is a relief as not only does it accord with the essence of
assessing tree risk, but also adds weight to the NTSG document
www.ntsg.org.uk In the UK the risk of death caused by a tree to a member
of the public averages 6 a year (pop circ 68.3 million) and the risk of
injury is cited as one in a million (70 incidents a year?) An American
risk
specialist - whose name I can't remember - provided a comparison as being
the equivalent risk of being killed in a 200 mile drive.  Risk and
statistics are specific academic subjects and a lay person's
understanding
(that's me) of them is limited.
I have long-described arboriculture as the "pursuit of estimation" and
most after-the-event opinions about incidents of tree failure have to be
treated with caution.
Russ is absolutely right about the role of a judge, and when hearing
evidence from expert witnesses they have to assess credibility as well as
the technical offerings.
If a judge is given false evidence without realising it is so, (s)he can
do no more than rely upon it.
This judgement is very well-considered and logical to follow, and I
regard
such documents as essential CPD.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Russ Carlson
Sent: 13 October 2021 04:57
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust

[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




--
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