An old question of ethics

Good points from all. This is a topic I've pondered through my career, and the bottom line for me has always been to offer the best advise I can.

If I'm called to look at a tree I'll point out the incidental things I see in any other nearby trees during the evaluation.
 
It comes down to the evidence. If in Tom's scenario the client decides he should've warned them and they pursue a case, he'll need to prove he's not liable. What evidence does he have that will limit his liability? Is it as simple as he was only hired to prune a lilac out front? What proof does he have that was the limit of his duty? A contract that spells that out and states the limit of his work, signed by the parties? Does his certification place a further burden of duty on him? For most professions it does.

It's a double edged sword that gives us an additional burden of duty to our clients, a fiduciary duty created by the contract which creates a "trust relationship". On the upside is it provides us another opportunity to further sell our services. If you've got a problem with that then you need to better educate yourself in consultative selling. We are in business, and as John puts it, owe a fiduciary duty to the company to put it's interest ahead of our own and that is to be profitable and generate revenue. We are the instruments of the business to do that whether we're wearing the hat of the arborist or sales person.

IMHO....
 
Babberney is spot on: if you notice a hazard on someone's property who you are working for, you are obligated to tell them. If they have 9 acres and you were only hired to prune the Japanese Maple out front, you're off the hook for what's going on out back if they didn't ask you to check it out. If, however, you prune a Japanese Maple in the back yard and walk past, say, an actively separating inclusion on an oak in front (something with a 4 or 5 likelihood of failure rating) you ARE obligated to point this out to the homeowner.

You're not obligated to do the work or even provide a bid, although as JPS pointed out, it's probably good business to do so, but you are obligated to notify the homeowner. By US law and, IMHO as a decent human being.

Not to harp on it, but if you take your car to a mechanic to change the oil, and he notices that your brake cable is frayed and about to break, is it be OK for him not to mention this to you? It's not, and the same standard applies to us.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, practically all of my clients/callers are looking for a professional evaluation of their trees/property, so I am more in the liability-laden end of the spectrum here. I think you are right that it depends on the location of the hazard, but again, there could be some gray area there as well.

-Tom

[/ QUOTE ]

This post sort of reminds me of criminals being released from prison.

Having paid their time (often inadequate), most of the public is not informed about the danger of these people wherever they roam. Then if they hurt somebody, whose fault was it that someone was stabbed, robbed or assaulted?

Very different, but the thread brought that to mind. Because there are many kinds of dangers in our communities, and different levels of announcements or secrecy.

Also, I do a lot of hiking.

And there are dangers and defects in trees in every direction when compared to urban tree care. In the forest, it seems like only the worst cases are removed or corrected. Out there, that's fine with me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Babberney is spot on: if you notice a hazard on someone's property who you are working for, you are obligated to tell them. If they have 9 acres and you were only hired to prune the Japanese Maple out front, you're off the hook for what's going on out back if they didn't ask you to check it out. If, however, you prune a Japanese Maple in the back yard and walk past, say, an actively separating inclusion on an oak in front (something with a 4 or 5 likelihood of failure rating) you ARE obligated to point this out to the homeowner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely, however I do think you're kind of missing the mark with the mechanic example, because in that example, the mechanic notices another defect each time. I'm talking about being held responsible for defects that go unnoticed in the performance of a perfunctory task.

I have stated that I am very rarely called upon for these types of jobs, but it does happen. The front yard stump, the dead yew by the door, etc. Sometimes these customers are not interested in a consultation. That's just the way it is. It doesn't make my tree service more or less ethical than some of the other posters here, in fact, it doesn't indicate anything at all with regard to ethics.

I have an email out to a friend who is a member of ASCA using my example (more or less) to see if he knows of legal precedent where an arborist was held accountable for something they didn't see and were not hired to inspect, assess, or even walk by.

-Tom

(PS - Mario, you sort of lost me with the 'criminals being released from prison' analogy.)
 
The impression I had was the question of liability/responsibility of the certified arborist having been in a tree to prune it that subsequently failed. That is not a question of ethics but duty. When you take on the mantel of the professional then the public perceives a greater duty of care. So, he'll need to demonstrate he exercised that duty of care and did not see any indication of potential failure.

That is the burden we and every other professional carries.
 
TH, you are correct, the original post is in reference to a situation where the tree in question had been worked on by the arborist being sued.

I posted with regard to the difference between a consultation and a quote, and between that and some semantics and misunderstandings, we're way off track.

I think we can all agree that any responsible arborist should notify their client of a known hazard. Beyond that, it is up to lawyers, interpretation, and perhaps legal precedent to decide if an arborist is liable for an Error or Omission resulting in a loss.

-Tom
 
Has anyone ever gone up a tree to see a wire below you and thanked your lucky stars because you didn't take the time to look the site over thoroughly before you started climbing? It seems we need to consider carefully and take the time to document where we go, what we see and who we talk to for the sake of the unseen future events.

On my end of things, many municipalities are in a comfort zone of sustaining a professional staff and counting on the "act of God" defense to come to the rescue we find ourselves in a pinch. Everything indicates we will be held to a higher standard, which is actually a good opportunity for justifying our positions as professionals, but only if we are professionals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom