OWNERSHIP, RISK, RESP E
very time we get battered by a gale or storm force wind in the United Kingdom, it is safe to assume that limbs and branches may be shed and that some trees may fall over. Given the fact that we have approximately 900 million trees, together with 400,000km of highways and a population of 62 million, it is certain that many of these branches and trees could fall onto roads and endanger people or property. Over the last few years we have regularly witnessed tragic accidents caused by falling trees, which immediately create headlines
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) have stated that the average risk of trees is firmly in the ‘broadly acceptable’ region of the tolerability of risks triangle, published in the HSE's ‘Reducing Risks, Protecting People’.
The HSE believe that public safety can be considered as part of their overall approach to tree management, which sensibly ensures the maintenance of a healthy tree stock, retention of heritage trees and sound management of the environment.
In their opinion, an effective system is
• Obtaining specialist assistance/remedial action when a check reveals defects outside the knowledge/experience of the surveyor
• A system to report damage to trees, and to trigger checks after certain activities i.e. severe gales
Once a tree has been identified as a specific risk, action should be planned and taken to manage or correct the risk. Within the arboricultural industry there
and make it onto television news. On average, around six people in the United Kingdom are killed by falling trees and limbs every year. However, putting this into context equates to a risk of approximately one in five million which is extremely low. Unfortunately, the low level of risk may not be perceived in this way by the general public, particularly following an accident.
likely to contain the following elements:
• An overall assessment of risks from trees, particularly identifying groups of trees by their position and degree of public access
• Where there is public access, a system of periodic, proactive checks by a competent person linked with simple record taking
are many differing opinions as to exactly how the management of tree risk should be undertaken, ranging from the traditional ‘defect’ led approach where every possibility of risk was removed, through to a more pragmatic approach where intervention should be kept to an acceptable minimum. This latter view is one which fits with modern balance between sustainability, environment and cost effectiveness. One thing is sure, if the United Kingdom is to retain its wooded lanes and leafy suburbs, then we must be aware that being in close proximity to trees is not without risk. However, we must be pragmatic and accept that the benefits of trees - shading, carbon sequestration, increased property values, habitats, psychological benefits etc. - simply outweigh the risk. However, tree owners need to be aware of the law and how it applies to tree and woodland ownership. Common law imposes on everyone a duty (known to lawyers as ‘duty of care’) not to injure his or her neighbour (Donoghue v Stevenson). In practice it is likely to be an action of negligence, where there has been an omission to take sufficient care of the tree, where it leads to foreseeable harm. The owner of a tree may be liable in negligence if:
• The tree falls/sheds a branch • Injury or harm is caused as a result • The injury or harm was foreseeable
• The person who was injured is someone to whom the tree owner had a duty of care
Tree owners need to be aware of the law and how it applies to tree and woodland ownership
20
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124