Why Cable?

  • Thread starter Mr. Sir
  • Start date
  • Replies 33
  • Views 4K

What is the primary purpose of cabling and bracing?

  • To provide an additional profit center

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bah, cabling is waste of time and money; just remove it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
If people in the industry keep using the line that we're 'admitting' that a tree is a hazard by installing a cable then it's no doubt that someone will be sued. Change the way you talk and think.

Manage risk...or cut all of the trees down.

Any lawsuits from failed trees, cabled or not???
 
If people in the industry keep using the line that we're 'admitting' that a tree is a hazard by installing a cable then it's no doubt that someone will be sued. Change the way you talk and think.

Manage risk...or cut all of the trees down.

Any lawsuits from failed trees, cabled or not???
Sorry Tom. The verbage or how one states it or doesnt isnt the point.
It is when one places a cable & why that brings about the liability.
Any attorney I have spoken with agrees this can be an issue.
 
whats wrong here?
 

Attachments

  • who needs bolts.jpg
    who needs bolts.jpg
    251.9 KB · Views: 9
Looks like a proper job to me. Plus they saved money by doing it thier own selves....
What was the question:D
 
Any attorney I have spoken with agrees this can be an issue.

"can" is one thing...ask those attorneys if they know of any suit being filed.

I've never heard of one but I sure would like to.
 
It is when one places a cable & why that brings about the liability.
Any attorney I have spoken with agrees this can be an issue.
Attorneys believe that anything can cause a lawsuit--D"U"H!--because they are in the business of suing; they are sue-ers. Show us a specific case--rumor and speculation from a sewer--er, sue-er--means nothing. Kinda like asking a tree removalist whether a tree needs to come down. Sure, because it fills their pocket.

LIABILITY
Some arborists choose not to cable trees, out of a generalized concern of getting sued. Liability is assumed according to four specific factors:
1. Duty, the responsibility for the tree’s care
2. Breach, the failure to act reasonably
3. Harm, damage or injury
4. Cause, proof that the breach resulted in the injury
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, 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.

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. A tree “hazard” is defined as a level of tree risk greater than the owner is willing to tolerate.

“Hazard trees” are managed by lessening—reducing, mitigating--the risk they pose, either by removal or by arboricultural treatments, to a level that the owner accepts. Reducing or supporting defective branches, propping or bracing defective trunks, guying trees with defective root systems; all these and more arboricultural activities can be specified and practiced free of liability concerns, if they are ANSI-compliant, standard operating procedures.
 
:/:
0531-superman.gif
 
Alright, so I voted "To prevent failure of a defective stem or limb", but that's really not accurate, is it?

We cable to HELP prevent failure, or REDUCE the odds of failure.
 
Back
Top