Been Sued for you "opinion"

[treehumper]

Re: Been Sued for you \"opinion\"

We can gain some understanding about our duty and standard by reviewing case law. Common law is all about precedence. The courts will determine your duty and standard by comparison to previous rulings. I would think that there must be plenty of decisions to refer to. There may be cases related to forestry consultants vs. consulting arborists.

Now that would be something the ISA could dig up and publish for us!

 

[mrtree]

Re: Been Sued for you \"opinion\"

"Standard of care is determined by the practitioner(s). If a case goes to court, the judge learns from the experts, not the other way around."

Yes the practitioner may determine their standard of care but it will be the judge who will determine if it is appropiate for the circumstances (after listening to the evidence). A consultant will not be sued because of damages done but because they did not exercise a high enough standard (in the opinion of the plaintiff and counsel).

 

[guymayor]

Re: Been Sued for you \"opinion\"

I agree, this would be interesting. the ones to ask would be your state foresters. Here in my state the cases are so few and far between, they are random and thus not a reliable indicator of standard of care. Here is an earlier version of the April Arborist News CEU article on this--have you read it?:

Breach of duty is the failure to act reasonably under the circumstances. The yardstick against which acts are judged as reasonable is the standard of care. The standard of care is measured by the courts as the degree of care which a reasonably prudent person should exercise in (the) same or similar circumstances. If a person’s conduct falls below such a standard, he may be liable in damages for injuries or damages resulting from his conduct.

In legal matters, the testimony of expert witnesses is often used to establish the standard of care. **Also considered is the customary practice in the field.** For example, it is customary for a climbing crew to perform a pre-climbing inspection of a tree. Failure to perform this routine task might be considered unreasonable. Similarly, failure to perform a routine safety check on a chain saw might be considered as failing to follow customary practice.

Failing to follow customary practice or a standard of care does not directly convey liability. In order to liability to be established, it must be shown that a tree owner, manager, or inspector either would have or should have known about a dangerous condition had they followed the standard of care. While it is possible that a dangerous condition would remain undetected even if customary practice was followed, issues of liability revolve around the standard of care.

A key aspect of duty and breach is to act reasonably, to adhere to the standard of care for our work activities. **A universal standard of care has yet to be defined for tree risk assessment. For the most part, the standard of care has been defined in individual court cases through the testimony of expert witnesses and the persuasiveness of attorneys.