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 23:09:22
Agreed, of course, in the context of the Law.

WT

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:02 PM Russ Carlson <thearborist@xxxx.com> wrote:

[Text converted from HTML]
What needs to be acknowledged is that we, as arborists and experts in
these cases, see all this from our perspective. Once solicitors/lawyers
get involved and it goes to a judge/jury, there are many other issues.
Many of them are arcane if you're not trained in law. These issues often
have nothing to do with trees or who shoulda known. It just is not always
solely about the tree or the inspector.


---
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 5:23 PM, Julian Dunster wrote:

  They may well be questions we all have. I waded through well over a
  thousand cases to write /Trees and the Law in Canada/. Many left me
  really wishing I could see the evidence and try to figure out more
  details. But it is never available unless you know the experts and
  even then, we are often under oath to not divulge these materials. So
  no, not invalid questions but they reflect a lack of reality. And, it
  is usually unwise to infer evidence, causation, process, or motives
  solely based on the written decision, since so much is left out. Some
  judges really do write excellent and really quite fun decisions.
  Others - well, not always as useful.

  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 1:14 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
            PMoldoaktree@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
            Pitshttps://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
            Pitshttps://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
            Pitshttps://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk






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

            The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees
            arboricultural consultancy

      and

            Stockholm Tree
            Pitshttps://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



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

            The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees
            arboricultural consultancy

      and

            Stockholm Tree
            Pitshttps://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk




            --
            The UK Tree Care mailing list
            To unsubscribe
            sendmailto: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
          sendmailto: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
      sendmailto: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