When is a tree neglected?

[numtumfutunch]

Hi

This post involves 2 mates who live either side of a fence, 2 insurance companies, a garden shed, hurricane force winds and a bloody big tree.

Last night the tree fell over smashing the fence to pieces as well as the shed and all of its contents.
Its irrelevant which bits belong to who as we're being civil and matey about it, no really

The issue is that the tree looked absolutely fine prior to snapping in two however we've had a tree surgeon look at it - also a mate - who has diagnosed some kind of fungal infection and whilst the outside is normal the inside is as rotten as hell and an accident waiting to happen.

So, have I got the following right:

If the tree was sound and just fell over - liability is with insurance company of person who owns shed and contents
If tree was obviously rotten - liability is with owner of tree +/- insurance company

But what happens if the tree looks fine before it fell over but had undiagnosed and impossible to previously spot terminal fungus?

Its academic really as one of our insurance companies will cough up when theyve had chance to talk but Im curious in the meantime

Cheers

[Ziplobb]

its a tree - its like a human
humans sometimes just fall off their perch - trees can fall over at any time particualarly in winter
forget about liability
have some fun, get a chainsaw and chop it up - its very thearaputic, stack the bits and have a lovely afternoon fixing the fence - when the wood is nice and dried have a decent fire and cook some meat on it that you have killed, enjoy some beers, everyones a winner Babe

[sunbeam alpine]

numtumfutunch said:

Hi

This post involves 2 mates who live either side of a fence, 2 insurance companies, a garden shed, hurricane force winds and a bloody big tree.

Last night the tree fell over smashing the fence to pieces as well as the shed and all of its contents.
Its irrelevant which bits belong to who as we're being civil and matey about it, no really

The issue is that the tree looked absolutely fine prior to snapping in two however we've had a tree surgeon look at it - also a mate - who has diagnosed some kind of fungal infection and whilst the outside is normal the inside is as rotten as hell and an accident waiting to happen.

So, have I got the following right:

If the tree was sound and just fell over - liability is with insurance company of person who owns shed and contents
If tree was obviously rotten - liability is with owner of tree +/- insurance company

But what happens if the tree looks fine before it fell over but had undiagnosed and impossible to previously spot terminal fungus?

Its academic really as one of our insurance companies will cough up when theyve had chance to talk but Im curious in the meantime

Cheers

If there were no signs that the tree was rotten, it would be unreasonable to expect the tree "owner" to have taken any action. There is no negligence so the shed owner's insurance should have to pay out.

More importantly, once it's settled there must be the opportunity for a bonfire...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=11...

[numtumfutunch]

Ziplobb said:

its a tree - its like a human
humans sometimes just fall off their perch - trees can fall over at any time particualarly in winter
forget about liability
have some fun, get a chainsaw and chop it up - its very therapeutic, stack the bits and have a lovely afternoon fixing the fence - when the wood is nice and dried have a decent fire and cook some meat on it that you have killed, enjoy some beers, everyones a winner Babe

Which would be a most excellent plan if the shed wasnt built to PH spec with all manner of 'stuff' inside it and an easy 4 figure cost to put right

But we routinely do the killing and cooking stuff anyway cos we're mates

Cheers

[Slushbox]

There's a 'duty of care' for tree owners to make sure trees are safe. Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Fungal infections seriously weaken trees, but are normally spotted quite early by Arb surveyors. If the tree hasn't been maintained: crown thinning, disease checks etc, there could be grounds for a negligence claim.

As to insurance claims and negligence/damage, if it can be sorted out amicably on a 'sh*t happens' basis then its easier than insurance claims. Tree owner should at least clear the site and make good any damage..

If not, the next recourse is the home insurance company for a claim against the tree owner.

https://www.hellistreeconsultants.co.uk/page/respo...

Edited by Slushbox on Saturday 9th February 19:34

[SiH]

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

[treehack]

SiH said:

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

Why so?

[thismonkeyhere]

On a related note - how do I know if a tree is 'mine'?

Not that it matters much, but it'd be good to know in case of any incidents.

I have a large oak tree in my garden, but - so far as I can tell - it sits on the boundary, so in effect half of it is on my land, the other half is on council land.

[SiH]

treehack said:

SiH said:

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

Why so?

So you're suggesting, with a completely straight face, that in the absence of overt signs of disease or damage I should have my trees inspected every 5 years by an arboriculturalist? Trees that have stood for the better part of two centuries and survived numerous storms now need a regular inspection 'just in case'? I'll politely decline and will pass on that one thanks. That having been said, if you can point me in the direction of some legislation or formal guidance I'd be happy to stand corrected. (Though please make sure that guidance doesn't start off with some nonsense about the Magna Carta...)

[numtumfutunch]

UPDATE:

We're still mates but our respective insurance companies are not

The fact that the tree was rotten but impossible to spot until it fell over being the sticking point

Cheers

[macushla]

numtumfutunch said:

UPDATE:

We're still mates but our respective insurance companies are not

The fact that the tree was rotten but impossible to spot until it fell over being the sticking point

Cheers

Does it matter whose insurance is paying? House insurance is cheap as chips and doesn’t really increase by much after a claim in my experience.

[elanfan]

I suspect there is no legal liability here. Neither company would pay out on their liability cover.. if the structure and or fence are covered under the Buildings section of the owners policy then a storm or possibly impact claim might be possible. Similarly the Contents section for stuff inside the shed.

Pics won’t help as such but would be interesting.

Good luck.

[wa16]

i would look at the national tree safety group web site

http://ntsgroup.org.uk/

and download a few of their free publications

if its a latent defect that no competent person could spot then no liability, if it was obvious then there is; is usually the way it goes
but its all case specific

[V8RX7]

treehack said:

SiH said:

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

Why so?

I looked into this when one of my trees snapped at the base and fell against a powerline, alongside the road.

I called Police as the power line didn't look like it would hold the 600mm diameter tree all that long, meaning tree and live powerline coming down on the road

The Police said I couldn't touch it and I could see the cost rising as two Police cars closed the road.

It seems that if you have an "Estate" you are expected to have a tree survey, if you own a house, you aren't - I have 5 acres so I fall between the two.

However if the tree is clearly unhealthy or you've been informed it's a problem and you do nothing about it, then you can be liable.

In my case I strapped my telehandler to the tree to take pressure off the powerline and waited for the Western Power man.

He was a lovely chap who took the large branches off with a fibreglass polesaw and then I pulled the trunk down, into the road with my van and chopped it up on the verge before the Council tree surgeons arrived.

In the OPs case it's a house and an apparently healthy tree so the owner is not liable.

[SiH]

V8RX7 said:

treehack said:

SiH said:

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

Why so?

I looked into this when one of my trees snapped at the base and fell against a powerline, alongside the road.

I called Police as the power line didn't look like it would hold the 600mm diameter tree all that long, meaning tree and live powerline coming down on the road

The Police said I couldn't touch it and I could see the cost rising as two Police cars closed the road.

It seems that if you have an "Estate" you are expected to have a tree survey, if you own a house, you aren't - I have 5 acres so I fall between the two.

However if the tree is clearly unhealthy or you've been informed it's a problem and you do nothing about it, then you can be liable.

In my case I strapped my telehandler to the tree to take pressure off the powerline and waited for the Western Power man.

He was a lovely chap who took the large branches off with a fibreglass polesaw and then I pulled the trunk down, into the road with my van and chopped it up on the verge before the Council tree surgeons arrived.

In the OPs case it's a house and an apparently healthy tree so the owner is not liable.

As a matter of interest (and I mean that sincerely, I’m not being a dick!) what’s the legislation or guidance that leads you to conclude that those with an Estate should have a tree survey but that this isn’t necessary for those with a house? I’m really not trying to be an arse but my interest in this area is driven by a rather large oak in the back garden which has a stable crack and I enjoy having my wallet lightened on a regular basis by arboriculturalists who tell me it’s still stable. I understand my responsibilities and also my liabilities based on my knowledge that the tree has a flaw but I also get a sense that this is an area where there is a lot of received wisdom that is, in reality, cobblers.

[anonymous-user]

SiH said:

treehack said:

SiH said:

Slushbox said:

Usually that's taken as an Arb inspection by a qualified Arb surveyor (not a tree surgeon) every five years. Few tree owners bother.

Hahhhaahahahahahahahahha...
bks.

Why so?

So you're suggesting, with a completely straight face, that in the absence of overt signs of disease or damage I should have my trees inspected every 5 years by an arboriculturalist? Trees that have stood for the better part of two centuries and survived numerous storms now need a regular inspection 'just in case'? I'll politely decline and will pass on that one thanks. That having been said, if you can point me in the direction of some legislation or formal guidance I'd be happy to stand corrected. (Though please make sure that guidance doesn't start off with some nonsense about the Magna Carta...)

When I moved to my house, which has a number of mature oaks around the boundary I got some tree expert wallah dude with the right certificates to come and inspect them. If I remember rightly they cut down some rotting boughs (huge things from high up) and also (and this is key) drilled a very thin hole in to the tree to get a sample for testing to check the inside was all good. It was and I have paperwork to prove it.

I agree I wouldn't do it every 5 years but maybe every 10-15 for peace of mind.

Small trees I wouldn't bother with but something huge like my oaks that if they blow down through weakness could cause some serious death and destruction I feel I have a responsibility for them.

[V8RX7]

SiH said:

As a matter of interest (and I mean that sincerely, I’m not being a dick!) what’s the legislation or guidance that leads you to conclude that those with an Estate should have a tree survey but that this isn’t necessary for those with a house?

Several hours on the internet trying to work out if I was going to get a large bill !

Possibly my insurer or Council website

[dorset_clive]

Have a look at this: https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/Wit...

Not directly applicable as it relates to a Council rather than a private individual (owning the tree), but case law being developed just the same...