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 22:13:05
[Text converted from HTML]
The questions themselves are not invalid, Wayne. But they may not be
questions that should be directed at the court. Those are issues for the
experts to answer before it all gets to the judge, and in a way that
convinces the decider.

The lesson is to never go to court. :)


---
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 4:14 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

  So my questions are invalid?
  
  WT
  
  On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:17 PM Julian Dunster   <jd@xxxxxxxx.ca>   wrote:
    

    Wayne.
    
    The reality is that what you seek is usually part of the evidence
    presented at trial, but the judge is under no obligation to rehash part
    or any of it in the decision.
    
    On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.
    
    
    Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified Arborist,
    ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
    ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
    Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA
    
    North American distributor for Rinntech    www.dunster.ca        
www.treelaw.info        www.rinntech.info    
    On Wed/10/13/2021 10:34 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote:      

      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      

  




-- 
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