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 23:09:56
Agreed again.

WT

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

[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




-- 
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