Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
falling branches?

My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next to 
a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My understanding 
is that in general my road board is responsible for the safety of its trees. 
That seems reasonable.

But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also be 
required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway lines 
irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?

This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to check 
matters too.

Any advice would be welcome.

Mike

"Mike Arnold"  wrote in message 
news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
> falling branches?
>
> My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next 
> to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My 
> understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the 
> safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
>
> But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also 
> be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway 
> lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>
> This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
> entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to 
> check matters too.
>
> Any advice would be welcome.
>
> Mike

This could have such serious consequences, that the starting point should be 
to seek legal advice at any cost, and get some insurance....fast

Mike Arnold wrote:

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
> falling branches?
>


Why not call your local network rail office and ask them yourself?

"turbo"  wrote in message 
news:zLLQe.98727$G8.32929@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Mike Arnold"  wrote in message 
> news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
>> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
>> falling branches?
>>
>> My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next 
>> to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My 
>> understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the 
>> safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
>>
>> But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also 
>> be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway 
>> lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>>
>> This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
>> entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to 
>> check matters too.
>>
>> Any advice would be welcome.
>>
>> Mike
> This could have such serious consequences, that the starting point should 
> be to seek legal advice at any cost, and get some insurance....fast

Thanks. I agree with what you say. We already have 5,000,000 insurance but 
I'd like to get advice from all of you "out there" before getting legal 
advice (which isn't always right anyway).

Mike

>> This could have such serious consequences, that the starting point should 
>> be to seek legal advice at any cost, and get some insurance....fast
> Thanks. I agree with what you say. We already have 5,000,000 insurance 
> but I'd like to get advice from all of you "out there" before getting 
> legal advice (which isn't always right anyway).
>
> Mike



I would think you are best to cover your A*** as the best course of action. 
I would suggest get a proffesional opinion , in writing, by tree experts as 
to the current state of them.. If one did 'fall' or in some way get onto 
railway land, it would be so much more difficult for the cost of any delays, 
diversions etc ( which is usually counted in Millions) to be laid at your 
doorstep. I wouldn't think that Network Rail would have any resonsibility 
for the checking of trees close to, but not on their land, and even if they 
did, I doubt if you would be able to get a copy of that opinion anyway. A 
quick 'it looks alright' from a Network Rail employee doesn't carry any 
legal weight in the case of a heavy claim against you.

"Mike Arnold"  wrote in message 
news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
> falling branches?
>
> My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next 
> to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My 
> understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the 
> safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
>
> But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also 
> be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway 
> lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>
> This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
> entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to 
> check matters too.
>
> Any advice would be welcome.
>
> Mike


Network Rail carry out regular checks. They do cab rides to check for 
foliage obscuring signals etc. At least they do on the line work.

Regards
Clyde

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:03:29 +0100, "Mike Arnold"
 wrote:


>Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
>adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
>falling branches?
>
>My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next to 
>a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My understanding 
>is that in general my road board is responsible for the safety of its trees. 
>That seems reasonable.
>
>But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also be 
>required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway lines 
>irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>
>This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
>entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to check 
>matters too.
>
>Any advice would be welcome.
>

uk.legal (for ENG/WLS/NIR) or scot.legal (for Scotland) would have
been better places to ask but ITYF the person originating a potential
hazard has the primary legal responsibility to prevent it becoming a
real danger. In common with other landowners NR are entitled to cut
invasive trees and vegetation back to their boundary; this might in
rare cases cause a hazard in the opposite direction but any liability
ought to be negated by first warning the owner of the offending tree
(if time is available) and requiring them to take necessary measures
on their side within a reasonable time. There is IMU no general duty
which has the effect of one landowner being required to inspect and
report the condition of others' trees to their owner. OTOH they will
be obliged to take appropriate measures to protect persons on their
own property, not just sit back and wait until something falls over.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"CLYDE DEMPSTER"  wrote in message
news:0BMQe.40156$jr4.914@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Mike Arnold"  wrote in message
> news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing
> > adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from
> > falling branches?
> >
> > My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next
> > to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My
> > understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the
> > safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
> >
> > But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should
also
> > be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to
railway
> > lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
> >
> > This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the
> > entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to
> > check matters too.
> >
> > Any advice would be welcome.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Network Rail carry out regular checks. They do cab rides to check for
> foliage obscuring signals etc. At least they do on the line work.
>

Because they're looking for vegetation obscuring signals, you can't rely on
them to spot an inherent weakness in the tree which might cause it, or a
large branch, to fall on the line. Point out the situation to your insurance
company, and abide by any advice they give you. If you haven't got a formal
inspection regime, institute one - say a 3-monthly visual inspection, e.g.
by a board member, with every 15 or 21 months a more detailed inspection by
a professional arboriculturist (so that over a 5 or 7 year cycle s/he
inspects the trees in all seasons - it's not easy to spot a limb beginning
to split off high up when it's surrounded by foliage, and it's not easy to
spot die-back when the tree is bare). Make sure you keep a record of all
inspections, and abide by any recommendations. That way if anything
unfortunate were to occur, your insurance company will be well-placed to
fight any claim on the basis that there was no negligence on your part.

Peter

In message <df1493$joq$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, at 
08:10:11 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Peter Masson  
remarked:

>That way if anything
>unfortunate were to occur, your insurance company will be well-placed to
>fight any claim on the basis that there was no negligence on your part.


Why worry about the insurance company? If you are insured, and comply 
with whatever terms they impose, you don't have to do anything 
*additional*. The question here is: what terms do the insurance company 
impose?
-- 
Roland Perry

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:df1493$joq$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "CLYDE DEMPSTER"  wrote in message
> news:0BMQe.40156$jr4.914@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Mike Arnold"  wrote in message
>> news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> > Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing
>> > adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from
>> > falling branches?
>> >
>> > My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is 
>> > next
>> > to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My
>> > understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the
>> > safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
>> >
>> > But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should
> also
>> > be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to
> railway
>> > lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>> >
>> > This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the
>> > entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to
>> > check matters too.
>> >
>> > Any advice would be welcome.
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> Network Rail carry out regular checks. They do cab rides to check for
>> foliage obscuring signals etc. At least they do on the line work.
>>
> Because they're looking for vegetation obscuring signals, you can't rely 
> on
> them to spot an inherent weakness in the tree which might cause it, or a
> large branch, to fall on the line. Point out the situation to your 
> insurance
> company, and abide by any advice they give you. If you haven't got a 
> formal
> inspection regime, institute one - say a 3-monthly visual inspection, e.g.
> by a board member, with every 15 or 21 months a more detailed inspection 
> by
> a professional arboriculturist (so that over a 5 or 7 year cycle s/he
> inspects the trees in all seasons - it's not easy to spot a limb beginning
> to split off high up when it's surrounded by foliage, and it's not easy to
> spot die-back when the tree is bare). Make sure you keep a record of all
> inspections, and abide by any recommendations. That way if anything
> unfortunate were to occur, your insurance company will be well-placed to
> fight any claim on the basis that there was no negligence on your part.
>
> Peter


I wouldnt expect them to spot an inherent weakness at a 110mph.

regards
clyde

Mike Arnold wrote:

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from
> falling branches?
>


I believe the impact of wildlife/vegetation generally (note use of word
generally and not always) is the responsibility of the landowner where
the impact occurs.

So, if your trees overhang the railway the branches become the
responsibility of the railway. In fact, they are allowed to cut back
such growth at their discretion and without your permission and yes
they do check.

Indeed, how could you cut them back yourself without access to the
railway and this is not allowed. In any case, you or your contractors
would require a safety case, lineside permits etc.

It's the same situation with tree routes. If, for example, your tree
roots impacted upon the stability of an embankment this is also the
railway's problem, not yours.

Of course, you as landowner have legal responsibilities to ensure that
the bits of the tree on your side of the property are safe e.g. to
ensure the tree is healthy and not about to fall over.

In my case, I was responsible for sewer repairs to damage caused by
tree roots that originated on railway property. They were my roots
because they were on my land regardless of where the tree was.

Think of it like rainfall. If your property flooded and this flooding
spread over to the railway it's the fault of the rainfall and not you
the landowner.

Exceptions to this are possible but normally this would be detailed
within the deeds to the land. For example, purchase of land originally
owned by the railway might bring with it additional T+Cs, so always
best to check with the experts as well. For example, their could be a
condition that said you couldn't plant any trees in the first place.

"Mike Arnold"  wrote in message 
news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees growing 
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g. from 
> falling branches?
>
> My interest is as the chairman of a private road board. The road is next 
> to a railway line and we own some of the trees near that line. My 
> understanding is that in general my road board is responsible for the 
> safety of its trees. That seems reasonable.
>
> But I would also have thought it reasonable that Network Rail should also 
> be required to visually check the safety of all trees adjacent to railway 
> lines irrespective of the ownership of the trees. Is that the case?
>
> This is of some importance to us. We are concerned that we may bear the 
> entire responsibility without there being some onus on Network Rail to 
> check matters too.
>
> Any advice would be welcome.
>
> Mike
>


Sounds like they are your trees, therefore your problem mate.

AFAIK both roots and branches of offending vegetation are the responsibility 
of the tree/vegetation owner irrespective of what other people have said 
here.

Get your insurance sorted now and make sure your trees are safe and do not 
encroach beyond YOUR BOUNDARY

>
> Sounds like they are your trees, therefore your problem mate.
>
> AFAIK both roots and branches of offending vegetation are the responsibility
> of the tree/vegetation owner irrespective of what other people have said
> here.
>


So, if the overhanging branches have grown close to the 25kv power
lines he would still be best advised to get up his ladder, I don't
think so.

In any case, how do you deal with overhanging branches appropriately
without access to the railway, which is not allowed?

On 30 Aug 2005 10:57:13 -0700, "allan tracy"
 wrote:


>
<snip>
>It's the same situation with tree routes. If, for example, your tree
>roots impacted upon the stability of an embankment this is also the
>railway's problem, not yours.
>

It isn't all the railway's responsibility. Spreading tree roots
involve the law of nuisance (as do spreading branches but they are far
easier to deal with) and can lead to a web of blame/responsibility
when things go wrong as chopping the roots without regard to the
consequences might result in the tree falling over and causing damage
to others. IMU the roots of most (but certainly not all) trees are
likely to reinforce an embankment rather than weaken it with actual
root damage more usually happening when a root finds its way into a
culvert, conduit or other place where water might collect.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Brian 
Seamens  gently breathed:


>Get your insurance sorted now and make sure your trees are safe and do not
>encroach beyond YOUR BOUNDARY


Do you have some strange new method of giving orders to trees the rest 
of us are unaware of?

"Right!  You lot listen here! No branches or roots are to go past that 
there railway fence, on pain of a good pollarding!"

-- 
  - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk>    <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

The final advice I would offer is why get into the situation, where you risk 
fighting a complicared legal battle in the first place...Law is a lottery 
not a scientific fact... just don't take a chance.. If they are your trees 
( or your responsibility) and they are in danger of getting onto railway 
property, get them terminated- or a get a tree preservation order,- but 
that's a whole new ball game.

"turbo"  wrote in message 
news:tS2Re.99312$G8.38563@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> The final advice I would offer is why get into the situation, where you 
> risk fighting a complicared legal battle in the first place...Law is a 
> lottery not a scientific fact... just don't take a chance.. If they are 
> your trees ( or your responsibility) and they are in danger of getting 
> onto railway property, get them terminated- or a get a tree preservation 
> order,- but that's a whole new ball game.
>

Yes indeed. I have come to much that decision myself; that is, pollarding 
the trees rather than a preservation order!

Thanks to all who have given me their advice; it has been helpful. I agree 
with those who have said I should get legal advice, who have said I should 
ask NetWork Rail, who have said I should get insurance (we have insurance 
for 5 Million already, but a tree across the line could kill many and cost 
more than that I guess). It's useful to get these initial reactions before I 
take further steps.

You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) about 
what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are required 
to carry out) would be great.

Thanks,

Mike

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:28:29 +0100, Pyromancer
 wrote:


>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Brian 
>Seamens  gently breathed:
>
>>Get your insurance sorted now and make sure your trees are safe and do not
>>encroach beyond YOUR BOUNDARY
>
>Do you have some strange new method of giving orders to trees the rest 
>of us are unaware of?
>
>"Right!  You lot listen here! No branches or roots are to go past that 
>there railway fence, on pain of a good pollarding!"


Is that the origin of Barking an order?

G.Harman

This may seem rather a selfish moan, but having lived in
just 3 houses in my nigh on 72 years, and always by a
railway line, I have a feeling that tree cutting has now been
entirely abandoned, except where safety is an issue.

In my youth I could clearly see the Liverpool and Manchester
line 'twixt Earlestown & Newton-le-Willows from both school
and my two parental homes. All the trees which lined both
sides of the route were cut or at least trimmed regularly.

The trees on the embankment were never allowed to encroach
upon the public footpath which runs along the south side of the
whole of the 1 mile route between these two stations. Nor did
they impinge upon the town's public park path on the north side.

The old LNWR timber post and rail fencing had no need to act
as a restraining barrier for embankment tree growth because
the trees were never allowed to get any where near it.

Now, the modern, all steel spiky fence, erected in the last 3
years, is already beginning to bulge outwards into the public
areas because of the pressure of the uncontrolled jungle
just behind it. The width of the footpath is gradually reducing
as the branches and brambles force their way through.

As for the trains? On a quiet day I can still *hear* them pass
as I walk down the same footpath I first trod in the late 1930s!


Regards,

DigitisED  (Eddie Bellass)

Mythical Merseyside, in the Occupied Territories
of Old Lancashire, United Kingdom.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked
by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.

"Mike Arnold"  wrote in message
news:4313862c$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

> Can someone tell me if Network Rail routinely checks on trees
growing
> adjacent to railway lines to see if they pose a safety threat e.g.
from
> falling branches?


I can't answer you question but you may be amused by this anecdote
reported in last weeks local paper.

 A resident was concerned about the safety of a large tree in the
garden of a neighbours house.   They called out the council who had
the tree inspected, the tree preservation review officer declared: 'Oh
no, it won't fall down, I'm quite sure its alright.'   The very next
day  the tree fell down completely wrecking the couples house.
Fortunately they escaped without injury.   The tree was so large it
took a team of tree surgeons two days to clear.

The New Forest senior arborialist, contacted by the local paper
responded: 'These things happen.'

Reported in the 'New Milton Advertiser',  Saturday 27 August 2005.

Roger

Just after New Year 05 a kid was tragically killed by a falling tree in
gale force winds at Dunham Massey (National Trust) Cheshire.

A couple of weeks ago one of their staff was charged with manslaughter.

Time will tell, but a charge for an event that occurs in an eighty mile
an hour gale immediately seems suspect. If however the tree was rotten
to the core and likely to fall even on a sunny day then there may be a
spark of reality in the situation, especially given the National
Trust's role as an expert custodian of a heritage estate..

Mike may be advised to watch that case run its course just for
interest's sake

Mike Arnold wrote:


>You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) about 
>what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are required 
>to carry out) would be great.
>

Have a look at 
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-7601/Rt5202.pdf

which seems to put the ball firmly in the railway's court.

Chris
-- 
Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk

Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:15:48 GMT, Chris J Dixon 
wrote:


>Mike Arnold wrote:
>
>>You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) about 
>>what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are required 
>>to carry out) would be great.
>>
>Have a look at 
>http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-7601/Rt5202.pdf
>
>which seems to put the ball firmly in the railway's court.
>

No it doesn't. It is an 8 page document which treats the matter in a
broad fashion; it does not consider the details of specific
responsibilities and liabilities involved when the origin of a
relevant hazard or nuisance is on another's property except in the
sense of not allowing such a hazard to be ignored. It does not
transfer any legal liabilities and/or duties (if any) away from the
owner of any adjacent land from which a hazard emanates; that can only
be done by Parliament or the courts.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Chris J Dixon"  wrote in message 
news:8kreh1hhpigln80dgocfqfl74mc5ig49fj@4ax.com...

> Mike Arnold wrote:
>
>>You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) about
>>what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are required
>>to carry out) would be great.
>>
> Have a look at
> http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-7601/Rt5202.pdf
>
> which seems to put the ball firmly in the railway's court.
>
> Chris
> -- 
> Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
> chris@cdixon.me.uk
>
> Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.


Thanks Chris for the reference which is useful. I don't think it really 
"puts the ball firmly in the railway's court" but it does indicate that they 
are required to look out for this hazard and hence share some 
responsibility.

Mike

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:34:14 +0100, "Mike Arnold" 
wrote:


>
>"Chris J Dixon"  wrote in message 
>news:8kreh1hhpigln80dgocfqfl74mc5ig49fj@4ax.com...
>> Mike Arnold wrote:
>>
>>>You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) about
>>>what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are required
>>>to carry out) would be great.
>>>
>> Have a look at
>> http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-7601/Rt5202.pdf
>>
>> which seems to put the ball firmly in the railway's court.
>>
>> Chris
>> -- 
>> Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
>> chris@cdixon.me.uk
>>
>> Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.
>
>Thanks Chris for the reference which is useful. I don't think it really 
>"puts the ball firmly in the railway's court" but it does indicate that they 
>are required to look out for this hazard and hence share some 
>responsibility.
>

ITYF it's more a case of not being allowing to turn a blind eye
without the risk of compensation being reduced or refused if a mishap
does occur ("duty of mitigation" being the magic phrase?). It doesn't
seem to be a case of (shared) responsibility in the sense that they
have a duty to another.
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:a0qhh1lfuipoe48agmiqorb7pu6i488rlj@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:34:14 +0100, "Mike Arnold" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris J Dixon"  wrote in message
>>news:8kreh1hhpigln80dgocfqfl74mc5ig49fj@4ax.com...
>>> Mike Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>>You have all helped enough, but any further facts (with references) 
>>>>about
>>>>what inspections of trees Network Rail actually carry out (or are 
>>>>required
>>>>to carry out) would be great.
>>>>
>>> Have a look at
>>> http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-7601/Rt5202.pdf
>>>
>>> which seems to put the ball firmly in the railway's court.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>> -- 
>>> Chris J Dixon  Nottingham UK
>>> chris@cdixon.me.uk
>>>
>>> Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.
>>
>>Thanks Chris for the reference which is useful. I don't think it really
>>"puts the ball firmly in the railway's court" but it does indicate that 
>>they
>>are required to look out for this hazard and hence share some
>>responsibility.
>>
> ITYF it's more a case of not being allowing to turn a blind eye
> without the risk of compensation being reduced or refused if a mishap
> does occur ("duty of mitigation" being the magic phrase?). It doesn't
> seem to be a case of (shared) responsibility in the sense that they
> have a duty to another.
> -- 
>                                                             _______
> +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
> | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
> +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
>                                                            | // \\ |
>                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|


Yes, I'd accept that. Thanks.

Mike

"Roger R" <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:1125576019.5960.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...


> The very next
> day  the tree fell down completely wrecking the couples house.
> Fortunately they escaped without injury.   The tree was so large it
> took a team of tree surgeons two days to clear.
> Reported in the 'New Milton Advertiser',  Saturday 27 August 2005.


Just to update the story from the following weeks paper:

Tucked away on an inside page was the following:
"The headline over the story on the front page of last weeks 'A&T'
concerning the fallen tree incorrectly stated that the house had been
wrecked when in fact it only suffered minor roof tile damage revealed
when the tree had been removed."

Confirms that old saying, 'you can't believe all you read in the
papers', well not that one apparently.

Roger