Re: Dangerous Technique Alert!!!
Why watch day time soap operas on T.V. when I can read the TreeBuzz?
Several posters have mentioned the legality of promoting what could be seen as dangerous methods or techniques in certain aspects of tree removals.
When referring to the law, it is best to have a clear understanding of what it is you are saying.
Contract Climber said:
<font color="red"> "Lets say you send one of your crews out and the climber fells a section that he’s tied into with the worst outcome. Before we even consider the obvious moral issues/responsibilities, what are you going to say to the judge? We encourage our workers to tie into the same sections that their cutting off! [Judge] – is this necessary considering the potential fatal consequences? [Tree man] - Er-no but its comfortable. [Judge] – Your defense is based on an assumption that everyone has the same foresight and level of awareness, therefore you have been both negligent and to some extent reckless in the message that you are sending out, Go to jail Mr Treeman!"
</font>
While not an expert on the law, or even a layman for that matter, I have heard of what in the legal profession is called a,
'sophisticated user' defense.
For example: A mechanic at a shop sticks his hand into the path of a rotating cooling fan on a car engine. His fingers are cut off. He attempts to sue the shop owner because the owner did not clearly state (or have documentation of) the inherent dangers of sticking your hand into a moving fan.
Also prehaps the manufacturer of the car did not place warning stickers on the fan shroud.
Can the mechanic prevail in an injury lawsuit?
To use the example being presented here on TreeBuzz, can the climber (or heaven forbid, the survivors) prevail in a lawsuit directed at the owner of a tree company where the climber neglected to remove his/her overhead tie in before completing the cut?
Under the 'sophisticated user' defense, the climber in their capacity as a professional, is EXPECTED to understand the inherent dangers of their profession, and have the sophistication skill & training, to be able to navigate through the dangers of the job safely.
So the answer is no. The climber would not have a basis for an injury lawsuit.
In my opinion, if the climber is up in a tree doing that type of removal, they are sophisticated operators.
Some members of TreeBuzz have referred to ways in which to assess tree decay.
Resistograph, hammering on the bark plates, or even using the 'feel' of your spurs or noticing how the wood chips look and feel when you are cutting or even how the wood hinges when you make a cut. How a tree sways or moves provides valuable information. Even pulling off a little epicormic sucker with your hand can give insights on the tree's health.
These are some of the techniques that give essential information to a skilled climber. The information gives readings on the amount of decay in the tree and it's overall health and stability, or even if it tastes good
.
However, as we all know, a tree can (and usually does at some point), fail. Even with the best information and skill brought to the job.
My take on this thread/on-line argument is that their are many ways to accomplish the job of removing a tree. To steadfastly promote one technique, and one technique only, may have disasterous consequences for everyone involved.
On a final note,
To those of you who say they can out climb/ out work other climbers. It is a virtual impossibilty to actually meet each other and determine this outcome personally.
So why not just leave those types of comments to yourselves? It sounds like a couple of dogs on opposite sides of town barking at each other.
Tottally useless and just annoying.
