UKTC Archive

Re: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust

Subject: Re: Here we go again: Parker v National Trust
From: Russ Carlson
Date: Oct 13 2021 21:43:39
[Text converted from HTML]
Agreed, Bill. I used to think I never forgot a tree, but after 45 years,
there are probably fewer I remember than those I forgot. So I make lots
of notes and photographs.


---
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 10/13/21 11:40 AM, Bill Anderson 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