I need some input, please!

F

flinger

Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
A couple of months ago I was called to do a consult on a large multi-stemmed Norway Maple near the South Shore in Nova Scotia.
The municipality had decided to remove this big, old tree which sits between town property and a residential property, however is
owned by the town. The tree was in full leaf when I observed it with no obvious dead visible. There is definitely some internal decline
and the onset of minor rot at the base of one of the stems heading towards the house, however the tree withstood Hurricane Juan
and the following high winds with absolutely no damage. I provided a report about the trees' condition, the possible threat were it to
fall or split and the possibility of cabling the tree to help preserve it for several years to come. The homeowners have fought the
town tooth and nail to keep the tree, and along with a lawyer have come to the conclusion that they will cover any costs or liability
should the tree come crashing down! (In vague agreeance with the municipality.) They have further requested that I submit another
report stating that the tree will be safe following the necessary work, without compromising my position and integrity, and that they
understand that I cannot guarantee utmost safety.

I would appreciate any suggestions as to how to add to my report to help the homeowners keep this tree. I'm certainly in favour
of trying to preserve it and feel that the municipality have some other ulterior motive other than safety, for removal of the tree.

Thanks for any impending input!

Merry Christmas to all.

Kevin
aka Flinger.
 
Hi Flinger,
Your position is a difficult one,to say the least I have had similar situations myself.I have found the best way for me has been to try and make them understand that with nature there is no 100% safe tree regardless of condition.Given the right variables any tree will fail.With this in mind it can be said that correct placing of braces will greatly reduce the chances of mechanical failure under "normal conditions".Also a yearly climbing inspection and resistograph test for example to check for further decline.This is ofcourse providing that the main stem(s) are sound and the root system is intact but sounds like if it survived the high winds you spoke of then its probably ok..For now

take it easy

Didj
 
I agree that the municipality has an agenda of some sort and it sounds like Toronto's. City of Toronto (so I'm told) absolutely refuses to cable trees now. The thought is that by supporting the flaw they recognize a hazard and therefore a liability. If you recognize a liability and don't eliminate it then you are NEGLIGENT, to a lawyer anyway.
 
This past year one of my east coast compadres had a similar situation. After looking at a tree that his crew was suposed to prune for the municipality they determined that the tree was an imminant hazard due to (a) the location- busy street corner, (b) the condition of the tree. The City refused to remove the tree based on the fact that it was a landmark and that public outcry would be too great.
Well the unthinkable happened and the tree failed hitting an occupied vehicle with a 30 year old man who is now a parapalegic. This is a true story and lawsuits are pending. It has definately made me think alot harder about hazard trees and the position that we as arborists are in as the "expert" when it comes to tree failure. After working through a hurricane I saw just about every type of potential tree failure realized. Once again it just puts it in perspective for me how serious the consequences of our advice, our actions or lack there of can be. Also in the same city last year a tree failed in a big box store parking lot that killed three members of a family and left only an infant in a car seat alive. I wonder if any data base exists for such stats. I don't like to sell removals for the sake of it but I guess that you just have to look at the potential for disater and make the call accordingly. If it is between the tree and human life the tree is going to lose if it is my call.
 
Thanks for the input with regards to the Norway Maple. This weekend I will be visiting the owners of the property on which the tree borders and will bring all of your advice to the table and go from there.

I'll provide an update when decisions are finalized.

Cheers,

Flinger.
 
don't forget that hazard = risk of failure + target. If there is a picnic area underneath, your approach should be different than if there is an impenetrable bramble patch.

k
 
[ QUOTE ]
The thought is that by supporting the flaw they recognize a hazard and therefore a liability. If you recognize a liability and don't eliminate it then you are NEGLIGENT, to a lawyer anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

And most municipalities would agree with this way of doing things. Lawyers would have a field day with a failure from a cabled tree, and if there was a policy in place to cable trees, any tree failure could be seen as a missed opportunity to install a cable system.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A The homeowners have fought the
town tooth and nail to keep the tree, and along with a lawyer have come to the conclusion that they will cover any costs or liability
should the tree come crashing down! (In vague agreeance with the municipality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No municipality that I have had contact with can release liability for a tree to a private owner without selling the land on which the tree sits to that private owner. A city cannot 'give away' their liability, even if it is in their best interest. I'm not saying something can't be worked out, but it sounds as if you need to be in contact with the person responsible for right-of-way trees. Keep us posted on this matter, as I'd like to hear how it works out...
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thought is that by supporting the flaw they recognize a hazard and therefore a liability. If you recognize a liability and don't eliminate it then you are NEGLIGENT, to a lawyer anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

And most municipalities would agree with this way of doing things. Lawyers would have a field day with a failure from a cabled tree, and if there was a policy in place to cable trees, any tree failure could be seen as a missed opportunity to install a cable system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've talked with several people who have done arbor litigation to get a better understanding of the liability that is taken on when a cable is installed. What we've talked about is two courses of events. I'll see if I can walk through them.

An arbo is asked to look at a tree. The tree has some structural weakenes, but don't they all? The arbo is faced with two possible decisions, let's keep this simple since I can't post pictures of a case-study. The choices are removal or cabling. The arbo's client won't hear about removal. The arbo will either walk away or do what the client wants. The arbo suggests cabling and pruning. The client is scared of the liablity that is talked about if cabling is installed so they opt not to cable.

The other option is to cable, and generally, prune the tree.

Now run the tape ahead some time. The first tree fails and smashes Little Janie's Red Wagon. Off to court we go for compensation. During the proceedings it comes out that the client opted to not to what the professional recommended. OOPS! Potential big liability. This is pretty well settled in the courts. If professional advice is ignored there is no dodging the bullet. That's negligence.

In the second case, the tree was cabled according to industry standards. It still crushed the Red Wagon. Again, in court. Now it is shown that the client followed professional advice and procedures. Much less liability.

There is too much talk within our profession about this alleged boogie man of acknowledging a risk by installing cables. I say RUBBISH! Double RUBBISH!! Cabling has been an accepted procedure for a very long time. Why are people inside the profession so scared? I think there is a higher liability when using fertilizers and chemicals.

Another idea that I've ranted about is the possibility of a tree failing from not being cabled. Not installing cables could be shown to be negligent. This follows the case law that puts any trees within our scope our responsibility. If an arbo is called to look at trees in the front yard, any tree within the view needs to be assessed. The backyard trees are out of view so "out of sight, out of mind". If the arbo is called to look at the back yard tree and walks through the front yard, the front yard trees are under the arbos "care" even if the client is only interested in the others. Kinda sucks but that's the way it is. No difference in other industries.

The advice I give in cabling classes is three fold:

Follow industry standards
Use the best materials and over-build if needed. Material cost is the smallest part of the job, labor and overhead are much larger parts.
Buy as much liability insurance as you need to go to sleep at night.
 
Excellent position Tom, completely agree. Personally, I have a simple rule, I am here to give the client the benefit of my knowledge to make an informed choice, not to make it for them. Once they decide on a coarse of action, then I decide if I am the one that will do it. That is all I expect out of experts I call about other things so that is what I try to deliver to my clients.

Question about how much liability an arborist has in relation to trees he/she is not asked to look at. Obviously, a large decay section that one sees on the front of a tree you should mention. But what about on the back? Am I supposed to go and look at every single tree I walk by on a clients property? If so how much of an inspection am I supposed to do?

Just got me thinking so I thought I would pose the question.

Happy to still have all my fingers & toes,

Brian
 
Once I started to learn about liabilities and negligence estimates took on a different aspect. It never hurts to make extra notes and pass them onto the client.

This can also lead to over-concern too. Learning about risk management and how that relates to trees gives you a scale to measure by. In any population there will be a scattering of ones through tens. Start by working on the tens and hope that you can find clients that will work there was down to the ones on the list. When we find those people we know that they'll be funding our kid's college educations :)
 
Tom-
My point about liability was NOT from the view of a commercial arborist, but rather that of an urban forester... I was trying to shed some light as to why the city is being difficult in this case, as I would have to hold the same view. I know the functions cables serve, and I never shied from using them in commercial applications. Many cities will allow them to be installed privately with yearly inspections, but very few cities will install them themselves due to liability issues. I can elaborate if you wish... I'm just offering another view.
 
[ QUOTE ]
. The arbo suggests cabling and pruning. The client is scared of the liablity that is talked about if cabling is installed so they opt not to cable.



[/ QUOTE ]

So the arbo is not liable if first advising that the best or surest way is removal? (right?) /forum/images/graemlins/bath.gif

What liablity is the client afraid of? Will insurers not compensate if the client had an arborist put hardware in the tree that fell on their house? (instead of removing it like the arborist suggested) /forum/images/graemlins/imwitstupid.gif

Man, this really makes you think. I like the one about assesing every tree that is visible to the arborist. /forum/images/graemlins/thk.gif
 
Kevin,

I would recommend that the homeowner get another opinion from an Arborist with credentials. Not that implying that you don't have credentials. Credentials are important in court. If you have credentials and another Arborist, (on your side), has credentials then great, you may have less liability if you end up in court. If you have no credentials and you end up in court against another Arborist with credentials, it may be ugly.

“ They have further requested that I submit another
report stating that the tree will be safe following the necessary work”

I would be very careful how that report was worded. Something like this may be more appropriate:

Pruning and installation of a well designed tree support system, by a qualified arborist following ANSI A-300 standards, may minimize the risk of failure.

Switch ANSI A-300 standards with whatever written standards are used in Canada. In the ANSI standard “a qualified arborist” is defined, if that is not the case with the standards you use then you should use some definition in your report. Definitly include disclaimers. Possibly have it review by an attorney.

Hope that helps someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom