Liability associated with cabling?

[tockmal]

Banjo,

Type something like this on a sheet of paper;

Trees are living organisms and can decline in health rapidly due to biotic and abiotic influences. Therefore failure of intact trees can never be ruled out due to the laws and forces of nature.

Trees also exist in a dynamic state of constant change therefore it is not possible to assign a long period of non-failure to any tree.

It is particularly vital that trees are re-inspected in the wake of traumatic events such as storms. Failure to do this could result in failure of the tree. Any change of site use or activity may well have a bearing upon the status of the tree within that altered environment.

I 'slum lord' have read and understood the contents of this contract and am hereby bound by the above to carry out my duty of care to the residents, visitors and staff of this property with regards to the safety of this tree.

Get him to sign this in the presence of 2 lawyers otherwise forget the whole thing.

 

[mrtree]

Ah the old admitting fault line. If you believe that cabling a tree is admitting there is a fault or problem and thus there is legal liability, what about when you fix something else? If you fix the brakes on your car are you admitting fault and there is problem with the car?. I do not think so; I think you are fixing the problem in a professional accepted method.

 

[tockmal]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are fixing the problem in a professional accepted method.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point.

 

[guymayor]

I agree with tockmal and mrtree here; liability is nothing to run and hide from. re the usfs risk guide, i took a tree walk with its primary author at the last isa conference. i was appalled to hear her voicing the "admitting there's a defect" line, and instead recommending whacking off huge branches that would INCREASE the risk due to imbalance and rot.

as far as inspections go, sherrill's arborist supply has a form that makes inspection much easier to schedule, and supplies some coverage against eventual failure if the woner would not pay for inspections. described in the cabling article here:

http://www.tcia.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_July_07.pdf

 

[Mangoes]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that cabling a tree is admitting there is a fault or problem and thus there is legal liability, what about when you fix something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most municiple lawyer won't agree with you. I don't think the City of Toronto has cabled a tree in the last decade.

Installing a cable in a tree is admisssion of a fault in the tree's ability to bear it's own weight.


[ QUOTE ]
If you fix the brakes on your car are you admitting fault and there is problem with the car?. I do not think so; I think you are fixing the problem in a professional accepted method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are a licensed mechanic this would not be a professional repair. Same reason owner/operator truck drivers who used to trim the fat off their expenses by changing tyres are no longer allowed.......they aren't professional tyre changers.

 

[mrtree]

The city of Toronto has cabled trees, via contactors, I know I have done it. Not for the city directly but when the adjoining homeowner has paid and the city has signed off.

As for municipal lawyers and liability how does cabling differing from removing large limbs? When you "prune" for dead limbs and tops or limbs cracking out are you not admitting there is a problem with a tree? What about pruning near wires or when a homeowner calls in a complaint? By working on the the tree you are admitting a problem (be it structural or not).

"If you fix the brakes on your car are you admitting fault and there is problem with the car?. I do not think so; I think you are fixing the problem in a professional accepted method. " this is poorly worded but I meant if you have a mechanic fix the breaks on your car is it not equivalant to have a "qualified" arborist cable a tree. Surely we don't condem a car because it needs a repair.

I hate the issue of liability and cabling, it is like we are scared of some monster waiting to get us. Every conference, magazine article, etc. always mentions liability and tries to scare you. As Guy always talks about, RISK is the word. You evaluate the tree, give your oponion and let the customer decide on the risk they wish to assume.

If we are scarred of the risk of a cabling tree failing we should not be at work. If is far riskier for us to drive to work and work. I bet more tree workers are killed per year then homeowners dying by cabled trees failing.

Further there has to be some reason applied. Who does not check their homes and fix shingles etc. Man-made things do not last for ever, there is a time frame and there is a need for inspection. Cables in a tree is just one thing that we build, inspect and repair as necessary.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

When I wrote the cabling chapter for the USFS publication I had the opportunity to make the point that several people have made in this thread. Cabling is a normal, accepted and routine operation in the industry. Following accepted trade practices starting with a hazard analysis is our job.

The longer that we, as arborists, continue to forward the argument that cabling is admitting failure the longer we are going to be defending our practices. There are plenty of metaphors in other situations that can be used here.

Let's look at this scenario...'Someone' from the 'don't cable because it is admitting defect' camp chooses not to cable a tree. The tree fails and causes damage or injury. An attorney is hired to find fault. I am contacted to consult and determine that the tree would either have not failed or the results of the failure could have been much reduced. That puts 'Someone' in a position to have to defend not following accepted industry practices.

I've thrown out this challenge in the past...can anyone site a case where a company was taken to court after a cabled tree failed? This question has been asked of some very busy Consulting Arbos and none have ever heard of a case being brought. I think that maybe we are more scared of potentials than realities.

 

[tockmal]

[ QUOTE ]

The longer that we, as arborists, continue to forward the argument that cabling is admitting failure the longer we are going to be defending our practices.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your right Tom, and it's about time this war cry of 'your admitting potential for failure due to recognising a structural weakness' arguement was thrown out with the garbage.

I've happily cabled well over 200 trees and I am proud of the fact I have at least made an effort to prolong the life of these trees.

When you cable a tree you are showing that you have tried to help it, that's it....end of story.

The only issue with 'liability' is that you have displayed your awareness of your client's duty of care to properly maintain their trees.

 

[Tree_Frog]

I have a few questions concerning this topic.

Cabling is an accepted practice, this is justified, I think there is a consensus on this.

How about cables that are not installed in accordance with ANSI standards? Examples I have seen are non point to point connections but rather loops and bends.

Cables installed on sound branch structure? Examples: "Feel good cables" on trees that are over or near structures with absolutly no indication for failure, potential failure, or defect. Trees such as Valley Oaks, Quercus lobata.

Liability of using new, less than five years, equipment for cabling such as RigGuy Wirestops?

Lastly, work to be completed to the "slip and fall" customers that have litigation written all over them. Who would entertain such potential libility and do you need an E&O policy to cover you work once it is completed?

 

[Tom Dunlap]

When I've taught classes about cabling/bracing I advise people to follow current standards, use the highest quality materials and buy more insurance if they feel any anxiety about the liability.

There are evolving technologies available to us. Several dynamic/rope based cablings systems and alternatives to bolts/lags for supporting cables. Do your own research into their viability for the task.

More important than the materials used is the design of the system. Over the years I've see materials that were inferior hold a tree together because they were placed correctly. On the other hand, high quality material placed wrong has not supported a tree which lead to failure. Which could be defended?

 

[TreeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, work to be completed to the "slip and fall" customers that have litigation written all over them. Who would entertain such potential liability and do you need an E&O policy to cover you work once it is completed?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a few concerns about liability.
1) You recognize a hazard.

2) You reduce the hazard with cables and some trimming.

3) There is a small chance your work fails. When and if it does fail you can bet expert witnessing arborist are going to be after the insurance dollars.....if you have insurance.

4) The odds of an arborist taking every possible fact into consideration before installing a cable is not near as likely as every possible fact being considered after a failure especially if it involves personal injury and a large amount of money.

Think how you will feel when you walk into court and see Dr. Shigo witnessing for the injured party! (highly unlikely these days, I admit)

 

[matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The longer that we, as arborists, continue to forward the argument that cabling is admitting failure the longer we are going to be defending our practices.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your right Tom, and it's about time this war cry of 'your admitting potential for failure due to recognising a structural weakness' arguement was thrown out with the garbage.

I've happily cabled well over 200 trees and I am proud of the fact I have at least made an effort to prolong the life of these trees.

When you cable a tree you are showing that you have tried to help it, that's it....end of story.

The only issue with 'liability' is that you have displayed your awareness of your client's duty of care to properly maintain their trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok i have seen at least 10 cables fail( all invasive on oak and horse chesnut and not installed by me !).......ive installed many cables myself over 13years in fact im doing one next week....sad fact is we would be the first in line if the cable fails and it damages or kills to be in court.at the start of the thread it was made clear the sort of gaurentee the customer wanted and you can not 100% offer that i would walk a mile or fell

 

[Mangoes]

[ QUOTE ]
I've thrown out this challenge in the past...can anyone site a case where a company was taken to court after a cabled tree failed? This question has been asked of some very busy Consulting Arbos and none have ever heard of a case being brought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hearesay, but quite a few years ago I thought the City of Toronto DID get sued over a cabled tree failing........I can't be certain though.

To keep things straight I can argue from both sides of the fence on this issue. But awareness is most important, then you as the professional decide upon the risks you percieve.

I've got a client with 8-9 Cobra Cables in a Horsechestnut.


Awareness!

 

[mrtree]

"To keep things straight I can argue from both sides of the fence on this issue."

I am not sure where the two sides are. The one side is that cabling is a normal, common and acceptable tree management practice. What is the other side? If you argue the " Installing a cable in a tree is admisssion of a fault in the tree's ability to bear it's own weight." then I think you will get eaten alive in court. Every person I know who has this thought (and therefore suggests removal) it not an arborist, they are a tree cutter. They cannot defend their actions, let alone explain why a commonly applied practice is wrong.

If an arborist is scared of going to court and defending their work, I would suggest they look at their work closely. Dr. Shigo (or a current equivalent) is going to point out what you did wrong, or inadequately, in their opinion, you need to defend your work.

 

[matty]

Well congratulations on all those people who think there cabling would never fail i would like to think that none of mine would either..............but the guy WANTS 100% PROOF IT WILL NEVER FAIL...sorry but you can not do that if you have already admitted that there was a fault blah blah a court would tear you apart and you would probably find your inurance would get out of it and you would be left with the bill wich would by this point be millions......no thanks

 

[tockmal]

[ QUOTE ]
but the guy WANTS 100% PROOF IT WILL NEVER FAIL...sorry but you can not do that if you have already admitted that there was a fault blah blah a court would tear you apart and you would probably find your inurance would get out of it and you would be left with the bill wich would by this point be millions......no thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

No professional arborist would ever give 100% proof of a healthy tree not failing, let alone a tree with a defect!

I will continue to cable trees with structural defects, without worry, as I believe that I have a duty of care as a professional arborist to prolong the useful life of a tree regardless of any mythical liability issues.

There is no liability issues when cabling, it is a myth!

 

[mrtree]

Matty you are correct that you cannot give a 100% guarantee. But we have moved to the realm of thoery in our discussion.

If you want to talk 100% then you better not prune, the tree may just break after pruning. Nothing is 100% (well except death and taxes as the saying goes). The original question really is not about cabling it is about dealing with a "slum lord" and as such the job should not be done.

 

[fastlil1]

Tell him you can give him the 100% garentee the cabling won't fail if he can give you a 100% garentee that the tree won't fail while you are in it, and that you won't fall out of his tree.

If it was me, I would tell him I can not garentee the tree won't fail after I cable it; however, based on my experiance this is a hazardous tree that should be delt with through cableing or removal (or if you have any other ideas that would help). And then, especially if you are a certified arborist, let him know since he is now aware of the hazard, doing nothing puts the liability of anything happening on him.

Probally not the most tactfull approach but makes it clear you aren't giving him any garentee, and probally makes him a bit nervous about doing nothing at all. After all he probally deserves it. And if you are still nervous about the situation, walk away. Not worth doing a job if you are going to have to keep it on your mind for the next 2 years.

 

[guymayor]

I would feel fine defending my work if all of ASCA's hired guns aimed to blow it away in court. What did Bobby D say about Dear Landlord--he who passionately hates his life, and likewise fears his death?

As for wirestop that are not in the bmp's or ansi yet? Very good question. I would point to research and testing supporting its efficacy. Then I would point to the slowness of the standards process, which is good if it means there is deliberation, but not so good when it is due to dinosaurs denying evolution.

 

[damage_inc]

Ask for a second hands on opinion from a fellow feller or even a competator. There is no guarantee on any tree, it could fall tonight or 10 years NO ONE KNOWS. Sure there is steps and measures to ease the minds of those around the tree, but I always try to think of if this was over my beadroom and Im the first to recieve any straight line winds. If you still try to go through with the work it wouldnt hurt to try to look up any info via internet or court documents on the fine member of socioty.