Can this tree be saved?

[sotc]

got a double leader cedar to go look at for cables today. havent done a cable in 2 months

 

[treesandsurf]

I stopped cabling about 12 years ago

Too worried about liability in my area

Frans, wouldn't there be more liability if you didn't cable and the tree failed?

Also, aren't there documents that would waive liability (that would also stand up in court)??

jp

 

[SkwerI]

JP, I don't think it's a lawyer/ waiver thing as much as the customer does not want the liability. Everybody is scared to death of anything that might be considered a liability and most homeowners will not tolerate a compromised tree on their property. It's not the homeowner suing the tree guy, it's the neighbor or anybody else suing the homeowner.

 

[JonnyHart]

So you guys thinking a tight steel cable here, right? That's what I'm thinking anyways.

 

[Frans]

Frans, wouldn't there be more liability if you didn't cable and the tree failed?
jp

Not when I recommend removal or in the case of a consult, write down that the tree is unsafe.

Also, aren't there documents that would waive liability (that would also stand up in court)??
jp

The idea of having a 'waiver' or a 'document' is a fantasy and you should stay far away from such things.
For example, the homeowner just has to point out the failure, and because you were the last person to touch it, you are at fault. Period.

Or if the house is sold, and the new owners don't get the papers in question, then you are at fault. Period.

Or if you go back every 3-5 years on your own dime to inspect the tree, and discover that 10 years later the cable needs replacing but the homeowner does not want to pay for it, so you dont replace it, and it fails, you are at fault. Period.

No, I just stay away from cabling, personal choice for me and my business.

 

[TC3]

All excellent points, Frans.
But as arborists, we're responsible for just about anything to do with a customer's trees once we've been on their property. A general waiver might be a good idea for any / all transactions.
A waiver for known 'grey' areas would atleast let a court of law know that you attempted to point out a problem. Better 'n' nuthin' ?

 

[Frans]

You have a snowballs chance in hell of besting a lawyer on commission who smells a fat settlement...

 

[MasterBlaster]

So you guys thinking a tight steel cable here, right? That's what I'm thinking anyways.

No, not tight... snug.

 

[TheTreeWiseMen]

All excellent points, Frans

.
But as arborists, we're responsible for just about anything to do with a customer's trees once we've been on their property. A general waiver might be a good idea for any / all transactions.
A waiver for known 'grey' areas would atleast let a court of law know that you attempted to point out a problem. Better 'n' nuthin' ?

I agree, was a good post.

 

[treetx]

Cable it, reduce the crown by 1/4

 

[treetx]

But as arborists, we're responsible for just about anything to do with a customer's trees once we've been on their property.

No, no arborists are not. Be careful. This logic leads to topping/removing of healthy trees, after all, the safest tree is the one in the back of the chip truck.

Cut 1/4 to 1/3 off, cable it, and let it grow.

 

[Old Monkey]

I take my cues from my customers. I like trees fine but every customer has a different risk tolerance and discovering what that is is important. I give them the options and let them choose.

 

[treelooker]

OM's right; it's the client's risk, so it is up to them.

Not when I recommend removal or in the case of a consult, write down that the tree is unsafe.

Absolute words like "safe" and "unsafe" are subjective opinions. Consultants are expected to be objective.

The idea of having a 'waiver' or a 'document' is a fantasy and you should stay far away from such things.

Every consultant I know of--100's in ASCA--uses a document stating their limitations--a disclaimer. They are not ironclad, but they are important.

A certain level of liability is unavoidable no matter what we do or not do, but there are steps that can limit our own personal and professional liability when assessing tree risk. First, define your assignment so that you and the owner understand the level of detail that you will be going to, and what form the written report will take. Second, state your limitations in a written “disclaimer”. Unless you have a big “S” on your chest, you cannot see inside the tree or under the tree. You cannot foresee what storms will be testing the tree’s strength, so you cannot guarantee its safety for a week or even for a day. Finally, make it clear that risk is always present, and it is the owners of the tree who are responsible for the decisions affecting the tree.

For example, the homeowner just has to point out the failure, and because you were the last person to touch it, you are at fault. Period.

That is spoken like a rookie lawyer prissing in the wind. Total BS. Exclamation point.

Or if the house is sold, and the new owners don't get the papers in question, then you are at fault. Period.

That is spoken like a rookie lawyer prissing in the wind. Total BS. Two exclamation points.

Or if you go back every 3-5 years on your own dime to inspect the tree, and discover that 10 years later the cable needs replacing but the homeowner does not want to pay for it, so you dont replace it, and it fails, you are at fault. Period.

The owner is clearly guilty of neglect for ignoring that need. Three 3excalmation points.

No, I just stay away from cabling, personal choice for me and my business.

Your choices are your business. But your above statements are
1. Unsolicited legal advice--are you licensed to practice law?
2. Illogical.
3. Spoken to us (which makes it more than personal) as if you knew about consulting. This proves that you do not:

"You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of besting a lawyer on commission who smells a fat settlement..."

ANSI standards are also recognized as the ultimate authority in the United States civil court system. In our country it seems that anyone can be sued for anything, so there’s no use in worrying about going to court, only in losing! There’s no need to fear losing a lawsuit if you have read the standards and know your work complies.

snarf, you've changed since the arborist.com days: hypercautious, and fictionalizing to cover that up. You may have enough ceu's to stay certified, but it seems you lack the understanding and the competence to practice arboriculture. If you fear lawyers, then you lack confidence, and it's a smart business decision to avoid work you are not confident in doing. Good move, Frans!

 

[treesandsurf]

There's been some debate in this thread whether to cable/brace AND weight reduction or only cable/brace.

I can see the argument that it is important to leave as much growth up top as possible, but I've always been taught (and read) that standard practice is to reduce end weight then cable/brace.

jp

 

[treelooker]

...I've always been taught (and read) that standard practice is to reduce end weight then cable/brace.

jp

Standard 33.4.2: "When necessary to accomplish the objective, pruning should be performed prior..."

it's not always necessary.

 

[Mr. Sir]

OM's right; it's the client's risk, so it is up to them.

Absolute words like "safe" and "unsafe" are subjective opinions. Consultants are expected to be objective.Every consultant I know of--100's in ASCA--uses a document stating their limitations--a disclaimer. They are not ironclad, but they are important.

A certain level of liability is unavoidable no matter what we do or not do, but there are steps that can limit our own personal and professional liability when assessing tree risk. First, define your assignment so that you and the owner understand the level of detail that you will be going to, and what form the written report will take. Second, state your limitations in a written “disclaimer”. Unless you have a big “S” on your chest, you cannot see inside the tree or under the tree. You cannot foresee what storms will be testing the tree’s strength, so you cannot guarantee its safety for a week or even for a day. Finally, make it clear that risk is always present, and it is the owners of the tree who are responsible for the decisions affecting the tree.That is spoken like a rookie lawyer prissing in the wind. Total BS. Exclamation point.That is spoken like a rookie lawyer prissing in the wind. Total BS. Two exclamation points.The owner is clearly guilty of neglect for ignoring that need. Three 3excalmation points.
Your choices are your business. But your above statements are
1. Unsolicited legal advice--are you licensed to practice law?
2. Illogical.
3. Spoken to us (which makes it more than personal) as if you knew about consulting. This proves that you do not:

"You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of besting a lawyer on commission who smells a fat settlement..."

ANSI standards are also recognized as the ultimate authority in the United States civil court system. In our country it seems that anyone can be sued for anything, so there’s no use in worrying about going to court, only in losing! There’s no need to fear losing a lawsuit if you have read the standards and know your work complies.

snarf, you've changed since the arborist.com days: hypercautious, and fictionalizing to cover that up. You may have enough ceu's to stay certified, but it seems you lack the understanding and the competence to practice arboriculture. If you fear lawyers, then you lack confidence, and it's a smart business decision to avoid work you are not confident in doing. Good move, Frans!

Hmm, maybe it's just me, but that sounds pretty harsh; even with the smilies.

 

[xtremetrees]

Modesto Ash, about 60 years old," humm I have never seen one I dont believe.

Great read, great thread. Humans acting humanly imagine that!
The discussion on wheather to trim the tree is stimulating. After looking at the pics (which the right side of the crown is out of frame) So for me its hard to say. Generally, I may thin some if the tree is in good health, which it seems to be and the only problem is the crack. But it is a large crack so yes thin the tree out, it will grow back. The health is not in question but the structure/base/stability. Reduce it prior to cobra, I would say remove several medium structure limbs to distribute weight evenly. Then cobra cable, then rod and bolt.
I have never rod and bolted a tree on the ground but I have installed one aloft just so happens there was a possum in the hollow and I probably bolting him /caged/jailed that poor feller.

 

[treelooker]

Hmm, maybe it's just me, but that sounds pretty harsh; even with the smilies.

No harsher than the "Don't practice arboriculture, or you will lose a lawsuit" advice that provoked it. I tried every way i could think of to mellow it out, but facts are facts.

It is a very hot button with me, I admit. snarf is not alone in voicing that opinion, or hearing that response from me.

But hey it's all chat; no blood spilled.

 

[TC3]

General consensus : Cut the damn tree down.
(Do I get CEU's for this ?)
jk
The tree is in an island, & would be a fun pet project / experiment. Go for it on saving old boy.

 

[Old Monkey]

snarf, you've changed since the arborist.com days: hypercautious, and fictionalizing to cover that up. You may have enough ceu's to stay certified, but it seems you lack the understanding and the competence to practice arboriculture. If you fear lawyers, then you lack confidence, and it's a smart business decision to avoid work you are not confident in doing. Good move, Frans!

Frans lives in a very unique part of the country and his fears of litigation are not unfounded there.

 

[MasterBlaster]

"where he lives" is redundant, LOL.

 

[Paul B]

my disclaimer page on reports is a long one indeed. Litigation is in my mind when doing things that may be liabilitous (word?) but I havent let it interfere in my daily operations yet.

 

[Old Monkey]

I looked at the pictures again and am skeptical that the tree can be saved for long. I guess if the customers are old it doesn't need to last long. I think I'd cut it down, turn it into a baseball bat, brand it with a lightning bolt and the name "Wonderboy," or something like that.

 

[TC3]

I looked at the pictures again and am skeptical that the tree can be saved for long. I guess if the customers are old it doesn't need to last long. I think I'd cut it down, turn it into a baseball bat, brand it with a lightning bolt and the name "Wonderboy," or something like that.

I genuinely like that idea, Darin. I once met an elderly couple who showed me a commode-type cupboard. "Cool", I said. They asked me to take a closer look >>> It was made of one piece of wood. By that, I mean it was carved from a single piece... no joints, no nuthin'. ONE PIECE. Friggin' awesome.

 

[treelooker]

I looked at the pictures again and am skeptical that the tree can be saved for long.

And what exactly is causing this skepticism?

I think I'd cut it down, turn it into a baseball bat, brand it with a lightning bolt and the name "Wonderboy," or something like that.

Heck yeah, great idea--then you would look like Robert Redford! Better idea to just take off a branch and make a bat with that

Frans lives in a very unique part of the country and his fears of litigation are not unfounded there.

Granted, there may be rampant californication in his neighborhood, but the point remains, litigation is nothing to fear, only losing; and if work is up to standard and defensible it does not matter if there are 1 or 1 million lawyers in your town.

Speaking of lawyers, I thought page 54 here http://www.treecareindustry.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_March_08.pdf has some cool ideas