# City to pay $500K to man injured by flying log



## Philbert

By MARA H. GOTTFRIED | [email protected]
UPDATED: October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am

http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/1...-for-man-struck-by-800-pound-log-outside-bar/ 



_Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago. The last things he remembers before it hit him on a winter afternoon in 2013 was leaving work, going to a neighborhood bar on West Seventh Street and stepping outside.

People had gathered to watch a St. Paul forestry crew cut down a massive tree across the street. Workers had removed the tree’s upper limbs and put them in the street to create a “crash pad” for the tree’s main trunk.

But when the tree toppled onto the logs, at least two of them flew across the street, striking Fladwood, then 65, in the legs, according to a lawsuit he filed against the city of St. Paul.

“I’ll never be back to normal,” Fladwood, of St. Paul, said this week. He suffered broken bones in both legs and a severed artery, leading to five surgeries and three months in the hospital.

“I’ve got titanium in both my legs. If you look at the X-ray, you wouldn’t believe all the breaks in them. My femur was just shattered like a tea cup.” The St. Paul City Council voted Wednesday to approve a $500,000 settlement to Fladwood, 69.

If Fladwood’s lawsuit had gone to trial, the central question would have been: Was the incident negligence on the city’s part?St. Paul City Attorney Samuel Clark calls it an accident.

“One of our city employees was standing right next to Mr. Fladwood, which underlines what an awful, terrible freak accident this was,” Clark said Wednesday. “It could have just as easily been one of our own employees. I think at this point everyone feels awful and is ready to move on and put this terrible accident behind the city.”

But Fladwood’s attorney said the city’s practice of using logs as a “crash pad” left spectators in harm’s way.

“I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen. “… Here’s a guy who was a completely innocent bystander, he’s not an expert in taking down trees, he’s not the one who’s supposed to anticipate this is going to happen. The process the city used was sort of a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it injured a member of the crew or a bystander like it did here.”

St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.

The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.” St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.

After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said. The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.

The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.

Jan. 4, 2013, began as a normal day for Fladwood. The independent computer consultant finished his work and dropped by the Spot Bar at the corner of Randolph Avenue and Victoria Street. Fladwood arrived at 1:30 p.m., sipped a rum and Coke, then headed outside about 10 minutes later.

At least five other people were watching as the workers prepared to pull down the American elm, which the city determined had Dutch elm disease. The tree across the street from the bar was 60 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter and estimated to be 120 to 160 years old.

Fladwood’s lawsuit said city workers did not rope off the sidewalk near the bar or tell pedestrians not to stand there, but the city said in a court document “that it used a city employee rather than a rope to keep bystanders at a safe distance from the tree felling.”

When the tree was toppled and the logs flew, the same one that struck Fladwood hit or barely missed a St. Paul worker who also fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit. The city estimated the log that struck Fladwood was 7 feet long, more than 1½ feet wide and 826 pounds.

“I don’t remember anything,” Fladwood said this week. “I remember going outside and hearing a crack or something and next thing I knew, paramedics were there.”

Fladwood, who is a Vietnam War veteran, asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center, but paramedics told him he needed to go to a trauma center because of the severity of his injuries. He wound up at Regions Hospital. “When they lifted me off the gurney at the hospital, someone said my leg was bleeding like a faucet,” Fladwood said. An artery in his leg had been severed and Fladwood required emergency surgery.

Fladwood filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Paul in 2014, but the city responded in a court document that Fladwood “assumed the risk of being near the tree felling operation” and claimed official immunity. “The city’s argument was that the decision to use the ‘crash pad’ was protected by official immunity, which doesn’t deny that what happened to him was awful, just the city wasn’t liable,” said Clark, the city attorney.

But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the facts of the case did not allow the city to claim official immunity. St. Paul filed an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which declined to take the case, and the city and Fladwood agreed to settle.

“The city refused to accept any responsibility, and we had to chase them all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,” said Olsen, Fladwood’s attorney. “… They claimed they’re immune from it, but why should the city be treated any different than anybody else who’s done something stupid like this?”

Fladwood’s permanent injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses are far greater than the settlement amount, Olsen said, but state law sets $500,000 as the maximum amount a municipality can be liable for in a tort lawsuit._

Philbert


----------



## Seedling345

Man that's brutal... they definitely should have cleared the area before dropping


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Philbert

I'll ask you guys :

Is using other limbs to cushion a falling tree 'standard practice'?

Ever seen a limb that big fly that far?

Would you have thought that that guy was far enough away (before reading the story / watching the video?

Philbert


----------



## Zale

It's standard practice but the way they dropped it on that pile, I could see that happening. Drop it on one or two logs but not a pile. If you catch an edge you see the results.


----------



## LoveStihlQuality

Philbert said:


> By MARA H. GOTTFRIED | [email protected]
> UPDATED: October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/1...-for-man-struck-by-800-pound-log-outside-bar/
> 
> 
> 
> _Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago. The last things he remembers before it hit him on a winter afternoon in 2013 was leaving work, going to a neighborhood bar on West Seventh Street and stepping outside.
> 
> People had gathered to watch a St. Paul forestry crew cut down a massive tree across the street. Workers had removed the tree’s upper limbs and put them in the street to create a “crash pad” for the tree’s main trunk.
> 
> But when the tree toppled onto the logs, at least two of them flew across the street, striking Fladwood, then 65, in the legs, according to a lawsuit he filed against the city of St. Paul.
> 
> “I’ll never be back to normal,” Fladwood, of St. Paul, said this week. He suffered broken bones in both legs and a severed artery, leading to five surgeries and three months in the hospital.
> 
> “I’ve got titanium in both my legs. If you look at the X-ray, you wouldn’t believe all the breaks in them. My femur was just shattered like a tea cup.” The St. Paul City Council voted Wednesday to approve a $500,000 settlement to Fladwood, 69.
> 
> If Fladwood’s lawsuit had gone to trial, the central question would have been: Was the incident negligence on the city’s part?St. Paul City Attorney Samuel Clark calls it an accident.
> 
> “One of our city employees was standing right next to Mr. Fladwood, which underlines what an awful, terrible freak accident this was,” Clark said Wednesday. “It could have just as easily been one of our own employees. I think at this point everyone feels awful and is ready to move on and put this terrible accident behind the city.”
> 
> But Fladwood’s attorney said the city’s practice of using logs as a “crash pad” left spectators in harm’s way.
> 
> “I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen. “… Here’s a guy who was a completely innocent bystander, he’s not an expert in taking down trees, he’s not the one who’s supposed to anticipate this is going to happen. The process the city used was sort of a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it injured a member of the crew or a bystander like it did here.”
> 
> St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.
> 
> The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.” St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.
> 
> After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said. The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.
> 
> The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.
> 
> Jan. 4, 2013, began as a normal day for Fladwood. The independent computer consultant finished his work and dropped by the Spot Bar at the corner of Randolph Avenue and Victoria Street. Fladwood arrived at 1:30 p.m., sipped a rum and Coke, then headed outside about 10 minutes later.
> 
> At least five other people were watching as the workers prepared to pull down the American elm, which the city determined had Dutch elm disease. The tree across the street from the bar was 60 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter and estimated to be 120 to 160 years old.
> 
> Fladwood’s lawsuit said city workers did not rope off the sidewalk near the bar or tell pedestrians not to stand there, but the city said in a court document “that it used a city employee rather than a rope to keep bystanders at a safe distance from the tree felling.”
> 
> When the tree was toppled and the logs flew, the same one that struck Fladwood hit or barely missed a St. Paul worker who also fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit. The city estimated the log that struck Fladwood was 7 feet long, more than 1½ feet wide and 826 pounds.
> 
> “I don’t remember anything,” Fladwood said this week. “I remember going outside and hearing a crack or something and next thing I knew, paramedics were there.”
> 
> Fladwood, who is a Vietnam War veteran, asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center, but paramedics told him he needed to go to a trauma center because of the severity of his injuries. He wound up at Regions Hospital. “When they lifted me off the gurney at the hospital, someone said my leg was bleeding like a faucet,” Fladwood said. An artery in his leg had been severed and Fladwood required emergency surgery.
> 
> Fladwood filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Paul in 2014, but the city responded in a court document that Fladwood “assumed the risk of being near the tree felling operation” and claimed official immunity. “The city’s argument was that the decision to use the ‘crash pad’ was protected by official immunity, which doesn’t deny that what happened to him was awful, just the city wasn’t liable,” said Clark, the city attorney.
> 
> But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the facts of the case did not allow the city to claim official immunity. St. Paul filed an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which declined to take the case, and the city and Fladwood agreed to settle.
> 
> “The city refused to accept any responsibility, and we had to chase them all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,” said Olsen, Fladwood’s attorney. “… They claimed they’re immune from it, but why should the city be treated any different than anybody else who’s done something stupid like this?”
> 
> Fladwood’s permanent injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses are far greater than the settlement amount, Olsen said, but state law sets $500,000 as the maximum amount a municipality can be liable for in a tort lawsuit._
> 
> Philbert



And everyone takes shots at lawyers....until they need one! City had nothing to lose litigating because their damages are capped. 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## derwoodii

Philbert said:


> I'll ask you guys :
> 
> Is using other limbs to cushion a falling tree 'standard practice'?
> 
> Ever seen a limb that big fly that far?
> 
> Would you have thought that that guy was far enough away (before reading the story / watching the video?
> 
> Philbert




yes, use limbs as pad often to save hard surface like pavement etc but after years of doing this im well aware of the potential projectiles with the energy of felling a big trunk. i set them in close to be well under lading and trim trunk so it lessen chance of flick or push but will still see the occasional log eject so keep the site secure of person or property or just take the time to dismantle it bit by bit.. Actually its often far easy to break it down in standing portion rather than in big bit on the deck and last few years we more often use a crane to lift and take big trunks away as cheaper & easy to dispose as habitat log or set it aside for the fire wooders 

I seen dead wood limbs & chunks flick and fly easy 50 plus foot and been 65 foot up in bucket when a dead limb from a felled head section rose gracefully back up & hit me hard....

the team & the bloke hit were very unlucky but the log pads were set to far away so the trunk top pushed them 

_From the vid comments 
Del came by the fire station and met with us last week. He is walking and doing good. He is an extremely nice guy (offered to buy the crew dinner) and we were very happy to see him recovering so well. He said it was fine to use his name/story/video in my future First Aid and CPR classes._


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

A bar in the middle of the day huh? If he had any blood left after getting hit they should have checked its alcohol level.

It looks like the whole street is shut down and blocked off.

They were working out there all day and this guy is surprised he got hit by a log?

I don't know, If I decide to spectate traffic while standing in the road can I sue when I get run over?


----------



## Ryan'smilling

DR. P. Proteus said:


> A bar in the middle of the day huh? If he had any blood left after getting hit they should have checked its alcohol level.
> 
> It looks like the whole street is shut down and blocked off.
> 
> They were working out there all day and this guy is surprised he got hit by a log?
> 
> I don't know, If I decide to spectate traffic while standing in the road can I sue when I get run over?




Agreed, anyone drinking a beer in the middle of the day deserves to get their legs broken. 

That was the point of your post, right?


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

Ryan'smilling said:


> Agreed, anyone drinking a beer in the middle of the day deserves to get their legs broken.
> 
> That was the point of your post, right?



No it wasn't at all. Its kinda ****ed up that you would think so.


----------



## Ryan'smilling

DR. P. Proteus said:


> No it wasn't at all. Its kinda ****ed up that you would think so.




You're right, completely ****ed up. I can't imagine where I got that out of your post...


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

Ryan'smilling said:


> You're right, completely ****ed up. I can't imagine where I got that out of your post...



I think I know where you got it.


----------



## Seedling345

Nothin wrong with having a beer on lunch. But the rum and coke I will have to pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Philbert

DR. P. Proteus said:


> A bar in the middle of the day huh?


 A lot of bars serve lunch. I don't drink much, but often have stopped in to a bar for a burger and a Coke. 

I would have felt comfortable watching at that distance (before hearing of this). Surprised how far it flew. 

Philbert


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

Philbert said:


> A lot of bars serve lunch. I don't drink much, but often have stopped in to a bar for a burger and a Coke.
> 
> I would have felt comfortable watching at that distance (before hearing of this). Surprised how far it flew.
> 
> Philbert



After the guy gets driven down by the log you can see a worker duck under the barricade in order to reach him.

Its said the we are responsible for the situations we get ourselves into.


----------



## gorman

What a dumb, futile thing to do. Unless they have steel plates under those logs, that big boy is still going to destroy that road.


----------



## benjo75

I recently started a thread about how to keep people out of the work zone. It's one of the biggest problems I deal with on a daily basis. They walk and drive through my cones and lift up caution tape and come on in. When I jump on them they say they are just going home. I have. 200' rule on my job when applicable. I know I can't ask people 5 houses down to get out of their yard. But all operations cease when someone is in my work zone. 

It looks like the tree was felled right toward the guy. We use brush for a pad but not logs. Logs will do as much damage as the tree itself. What's going to happen when a steel plate goes flipping down the sidewalk.


----------



## bikemike

Philbert said:


> By MARA H. GOTTFRIED | [email protected]
> UPDATED: October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/1...-for-man-struck-by-800-pound-log-outside-bar/
> 
> 
> 
> _Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago. The last things he remembers before it hit him on a winter afternoon in 2013 was leaving work, going to a neighborhood bar on West Seventh Street and stepping outside.
> 
> People had gathered to watch a St. Paul forestry crew cut down a massive tree across the street. Workers had removed the tree’s upper limbs and put them in the street to create a “crash pad” for the tree’s main trunk.
> 
> But when the tree toppled onto the logs, at least two of them flew across the street, striking Fladwood, then 65, in the legs, according to a lawsuit he filed against the city of St. Paul.
> 
> “I’ll never be back to normal,” Fladwood, of St. Paul, said this week. He suffered broken bones in both legs and a severed artery, leading to five surgeries and three months in the hospital.
> 
> “I’ve got titanium in both my legs. If you look at the X-ray, you wouldn’t believe all the breaks in them. My femur was just shattered like a tea cup.” The St. Paul City Council voted Wednesday to approve a $500,000 settlement to Fladwood, 69.
> 
> If Fladwood’s lawsuit had gone to trial, the central question would have been: Was the incident negligence on the city’s part?St. Paul City Attorney Samuel Clark calls it an accident.
> 
> “One of our city employees was standing right next to Mr. Fladwood, which underlines what an awful, terrible freak accident this was,” Clark said Wednesday. “It could have just as easily been one of our own employees. I think at this point everyone feels awful and is ready to move on and put this terrible accident behind the city.”
> 
> But Fladwood’s attorney said the city’s practice of using logs as a “crash pad” left spectators in harm’s way.
> 
> “I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen. “… Here’s a guy who was a completely innocent bystander, he’s not an expert in taking down trees, he’s not the one who’s supposed to anticipate this is going to happen. The process the city used was sort of a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it injured a member of the crew or a bystander like it did here.”
> 
> St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.
> 
> The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.” St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.
> 
> After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said. The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.
> 
> The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.
> 
> Jan. 4, 2013, began as a normal day for Fladwood. The independent computer consultant finished his work and dropped by the Spot Bar at the corner of Randolph Avenue and Victoria Street. Fladwood arrived at 1:30 p.m., sipped a rum and Coke, then headed outside about 10 minutes later.
> 
> At least five other people were watching as the workers prepared to pull down the American elm, which the city determined had Dutch elm disease. The tree across the street from the bar was 60 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter and estimated to be 120 to 160 years old.
> 
> Fladwood’s lawsuit said city workers did not rope off the sidewalk near the bar or tell pedestrians not to stand there, but the city said in a court document “that it used a city employee rather than a rope to keep bystanders at a safe distance from the tree felling.”
> 
> When the tree was toppled and the logs flew, the same one that struck Fladwood hit or barely missed a St. Paul worker who also fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit. The city estimated the log that struck Fladwood was 7 feet long, more than 1½ feet wide and 826 pounds.
> 
> “I don’t remember anything,” Fladwood said this week. “I remember going outside and hearing a crack or something and next thing I knew, paramedics were there.”
> 
> Fladwood, who is a Vietnam War veteran, asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center, but paramedics told him he needed to go to a trauma center because of the severity of his injuries. He wound up at Regions Hospital. “When they lifted me off the gurney at the hospital, someone said my leg was bleeding like a faucet,” Fladwood said. An artery in his leg had been severed and Fladwood required emergency surgery.
> 
> Fladwood filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Paul in 2014, but the city responded in a court document that Fladwood “assumed the risk of being near the tree felling operation” and claimed official immunity. “The city’s argument was that the decision to use the ‘crash pad’ was protected by official immunity, which doesn’t deny that what happened to him was awful, just the city wasn’t liable,” said Clark, the city attorney.
> 
> But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the facts of the case did not allow the city to claim official immunity. St. Paul filed an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which declined to take the case, and the city and Fladwood agreed to settle.
> 
> “The city refused to accept any responsibility, and we had to chase them all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,” said Olsen, Fladwood’s attorney. “… They claimed they’re immune from it, but why should the city be treated any different than anybody else who’s done something stupid like this?”
> 
> Fladwood’s permanent injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses are far greater than the settlement amount, Olsen said, but state law sets $500,000 as the maximum amount a municipality can be liable for in a tort lawsuit._
> 
> Philbert



Good article Phil


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

gorman said:


> What a dumb, futile thing to do. Unless they have steel plates under those logs, that big boy is still going to destroy that road.



I think you might be surprised. I know I am every time I see it... or even do it.

I do admit I stack my logs paying attention to what might be thrown because I lernt that lesson long ago, thankfully it wasn't downtown outside a bar.


----------



## bikemike

Yeah I am big on laying logs out as a cushion and yes I expect something to shoot out or a log bounce. shure does save on the pavement n concrete


----------



## TBS

This was always the biggest concern when doing any tree work in the campground I worked at. Most of the trees we worked were bull pine and they like to grow multiple trunks sometimes 20 feet up. They tend to partially break on the branches beyond that point. We caution off as much as we can and it never fails people will rip the tape down sometimes even while we are cutting.


----------



## JimMorrison

There is no way the responsibility for what happened here can be blamed on anyone other then those initiating the action. The crew had all the men, tools, equipment, knowledge, etc. to do this correctly, they just failed to do so. The fact, that the building across the street is a bar, is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

JimMorrison said:


> There is no way the responsibility for what happened here can be blamed on anyone other then those initiating the action. The crew had all the men, tools, equipment, knowledge, etc. to do this correctly, they just failed to do so. The fact, that the building across the street is a bar, is entirely irrelevant.




Failed? To set a marked boundry for the dangerous work they were doing because they knew if someone was standing there it would be possible for that person to get crushed?

I wonder if this guy would go into a bank, walk right up to a person at a desk who is on the phone and sit down. I think if I was that person, in that bank, at the desk and on that phone I would reach across and smack that *******.


What's next? People suing because the coffee is to hot?



I almost took out a woman who ran out of her house to put her garbage can on the street. I had just sent her in telling her I was going to drop a tree... and I did.


Of course I am biased after the times my properly marked workzone was infiltrated by some ignorant degenerate. I mean that is what you would have to be to disregard the ****ing road cones would ya!!???


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

JimMorrison said:


> How many times you have marked off a work zone, cut down a tree, or slapped your wife has nothing to do with this specific incident. Did you even bother to watch the video or read the article. There was no roped off work zone. One of the crew served that function. The boundary you refer to was to divert vehicular traffic.The person who got injured was standing right next to one of the crew. He made the mistake of assuming the crew knew what they were doing. Did you see the other log that came shooting out of that pile? It missed taking out that power line pole by less then a foot! Forget your personal bias and just look at this incident for what it is.



Aren't you cute? Love the inappropriate and abusive comment your ignorant and degenerate mind felt necessary to interject.

the video doesn't show much at all save for the aftermath where the boundry tape is.

Or was.

Anyway, why do you have to make those kind of comments?


----------



## JimMorrison

There is no boundary tape! At the end of the video, the crew member is ducking under the cable coming from the winch, mounted on the truck they used to pull the tree over. How can you pretend to have an intelligent opinion on something you won't even bother to look at?


----------



## TBS

DR. P. Proteus said:


> What's next? People suing because the coffee is to hot?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

You said this:


JimMorrison said:


> There is no boundary tape! At the end of the video, the crew member is ducking under the cable coming from the winch, mounted on the truck they used to pull the tree over. How can you pretend to have an intelligent opinion on something you won't even bother to look at?



It looks to me the boundry tape was knocked down by the log. I even slowed the video down and that's what it looks like. I also see the worker there so even if that wasn't tape the guy went around the human barrier.

And I can't tell you how many time some ignorant degenerate walked up behind me and got in the way. You can put up all the cones and tape and barriers you want. Got to watch them ignorant degenerates, they go to shitty bars in the daytime, stumble into jobsites and make stupid ass comments about other men's wives.


----------



## JimMorrison

You went back and edited your post to make it look better, really, that's all you got? The world is full of ignorant degenerants, but you are intelligent and morally pure. Well good for you. There was no boundary tape, that is stated by the official representing the city of St. Paul. The crew got complacent and made a mistake. You were out of line, just admit it.


----------



## TBS

Looking at the video the log was ejected from marked area the crew was working in and struck the person so that would make the city liable.


----------



## JimMorrison

Dropping that tree onto that pile of logs was never a good idea. They could have got away with it, but this time, they didn't.


----------



## TBS

The logs also caused damage to the structure.


----------



## JimMorrison

The article states the elm tree was 120 to 160 years old, 4' diameter, 60' foot tall. The limb that hit the guy was 7' x 1 1/2', estimated at 862 lbs. The main trunk was reduced to about 25-30 feet. What does it weigh? I don't know, but it's a big number. There can't be very many boulevard trees of this size left in St. Paul. The crew just did not realize the potential energy involved. They probably have done this many times before with no problems. It just did not work this time, with this tree.


----------



## Philbert

DR. P. Proteus said:


> Tell ME I am outta line!? **** you.


Well, as the OP for this thread, I would like to steer it back on discussion of:

- appropriate felling techniques in an urban setting; and

- the reasonableness of the liability award. 

(Maybe you 2 could get a room somewhere). 

Thanks. 

Philbert


----------



## JimMorrison

I was already done, but thanks for the reminder.


----------



## jackjcc

JimMorrison said:


> The article states the elm tree was 120 to 160 years old, 4' diameter, 60' foot tall. The limb that hit the guy was 7' x 1 1/2', estimated at 862 lbs. The main trunk was reduced to about 25-30 feet. What does it weigh? I don't know, but it's a big number. There can't be very many boulevard trees of this size left in St. Paul. The crew just did not realize the potential energy involved. They probably have done this many times before with no problems. It just did not work this time, with this tree.



There's an incredible number of trees left like this in St. Paul and Minneapolis. St. Paul takes the proactive steps to not be in court. Settling this prevented the uncertainty of what a jury would think. As a lot of people in this thread have commented, there's many ways to skin the cat and I'm sure theres an "expert" out there that would say this method isn't safe. Then maybe the city could be on the hook for a million plus. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jackjcc

Philbert said:


> Well, as the OP for this thread, I would like to steer it back on discussion of:
> 
> - appropriate felling techniques in an urban setting; and
> 
> - the reasonableness of the liability award.
> 
> (Maybe you 2 could get a room somewhere).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Philbert



I'd like the open face notch for this situation. The log moving forward pushed the logs out. If it's still attached to the stump all the energy is driven down. 

The crew should have kept civilians 2 tree lengths away. Across the street is too close. 

The article doesn't mention who covered his medical expenses. With what was listed I can see him have hundreds of thousands in medical expenses. His quality of life will never be the same and I think the city would be found negligent by allowing people to be so close. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LoveStihlQuality

jackjcc said:


> There's an incredible number of trees left like this in St. Paul and Minneapolis. St. Paul takes the proactive steps to not be in court. Settling this prevented the uncertainty of what a jury would think. As a lot of people in this thread have commented, there's many ways to skin the cat and I'm sure theres an "expert" out there that would say this method isn't safe. Then maybe the city could be on the hook for a million plus.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The original said that liability is limited to $500,000 by state law for government. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. Moreover, some state law require that a Notice of Tort Claim be served on government and state attorney general within 180 or 270 days even though may be 2 year statute of limitations. Failure to jump through these hoops will have claim dismissed. 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

Reading the very first line:

" _Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago..."






_


----------



## DR. P. Proteus

_I suppose a city will settle when it comes to stuff like this which makes me think maybe I should get into a little " slip and fall" myself.

I dunno: When you drive a state road and hit a pothole you are travelling at your own risk._


----------



## pdqdl

Philbert said:


> I'll ask you guys :
> 
> Is using other limbs to cushion a falling tree 'standard practice'?


Yes. 


Philbert said:


> Ever seen a limb that big fly that far?


Never on my watch. A certain amount of experience would have suggested to lay them out so that wouldn't happen.


Philbert said:


> Would you have thought that that guy was far enough away (before reading the story / watching the video?
> 
> Philbert



Yes & no. Not far enough away, if ye'r gonna fling logs about, plenty safe if you prevent that from happening.

The workers appear to have stacked the logs in a pyramid for some reason. This was the cause of the fleeing logs, and why the guy got injured. Building a stack of logs is not normal, and not needed, either.


----------



## Wow

DR. P. Proteus said:


> I think you might be surprised. I know I am every time I see it... or even do it.
> 
> I do admit I stack my logs paying attention to what might be thrown because I lernt that lesson long ago, thankfully it wasn't downtown outside a bar.


I wonder what would happen IF, just wondering, IF those logs had all been chained together, tied or secured as one????? Maybe they would have not blew out????? Has anyone ever thought about doing it that way???????


----------



## pdqdl

Wow said:


> I wonder what would happen IF, just wondering, IF those logs had all been chained together, tied or secured as one????? Maybe they would have not blew out????? Has anyone ever thought about doing it that way???????


 No. Not a chance. They might have been restrained, but it's just not done.

After the tree hit them, the chains would be locked tight, and it would be a nightmare to get apart. The logs-as-a-shock-absorber technique is used so that we can crash trees to the ground without damaging the landing zone, thereby saving money by not wasting time blocking it all down. If we were to create a tangled mess of logs & chains, that would mitigate the benefit of padding the landing zone.

Besides, it might rupture a chain and send chain links flying like bullets, or maybe logs or log parts flying with the force focused into a smaller piece. Some things you don't do just because you *know* it's a bad idea. Some things you do because you don't know any better. _ Stacking the logs up under the falling tree would be one of them._


----------



## pdqdl

gorman said:


> What a dumb, futile thing to do. Unless they have steel plates under those logs, that big boy is still going to destroy that road.



Not if you do it right. 
I've dropped bigger trees than that onto sidewalks & driveways, and never hurt the concrete below. It's a matter of putting enough padding to spread out the load. If the materials are there to pad for the drop... Proceed. If not, better block some more logs down, or get a crane. A crane rental is still cheaper than a new driveway.


----------



## Cricket

I had a huge hard maple come down in a storm a few years back - landed right between my house and my horse fence. About... two and a half feet, maybe, where it broke off? Just a few smaller limbs on the house in two places - braced on those and the broken end.

After cutting off all I could without destabilizing it (pics of me running around on the roof on here somewhere), I jacked it up (train jacks are a wonderful thing), pulled it with a rope across the top of my conveniently located bullet trap (about 6.5 feet tall, made of stacked phone poles between two sets of three inch cast pipes) - and it bounced the top phone pole off the stack.

I knew it might - which is why I made everyone get the hell out of Dodge. I pulled it from across the bullet trap with a chunk of rope someone scavenged from a Coast Guard station, that they used to haul ships with - and I was a good twenty yards away - and behind the bullet trap to boot. And it came off beautifully (the flying phone pole was not a problem *because I'm super paranoid and ran everyone off*!)

I'm going to send that video to everyone who poo-pooed my insistence on safety measures.


----------



## Philbert

Cricket said:


> I'm going to send that video to everyone who poo-pooed my insistence on safety measures.


Post it here?

Thanks!

Philbert


----------



## lone wolf

Cricket said:


> I had a huge hard maple come down in a storm a few years back - landed right between my house and my horse fence. About... two and a half feet, maybe, where it broke off? Just a few smaller limbs on the house in two places - braced on those and the broken end.
> 
> After cutting off all I could without destabilizing it (pics of me running around on the roof on here somewhere), I jacked it up (train jacks are a wonderful thing), pulled it with a rope across the top of my conveniently located bullet trap (about 6.5 feet tall, made of stacked phone poles between two sets of three inch cast pipes) - and it bounced the top phone pole off the stack.
> 
> I knew it might - which is why I made everyone get the hell out of Dodge. I pulled it from across the bullet trap with a chunk of rope someone scavenged from a Coast Guard station, that they used to haul ships with - and I was a good twenty yards away - and behind the bullet trap to boot. And it came off beautifully (the flying phone pole was not a problem *because I'm super paranoid and ran everyone off*!)
> 
> I'm going to send that video to everyone who poo-pooed my insistence on safety measures.


Cool post it.


----------



## camel2019

pdqdl said:


> Not if you do it right.
> I've dropped bigger trees that that onto sidewalks & driveways, and never hurt the concrete below. It's a matter of putting enough padding to spread out the load. If the materials are there to pad for the drop... Proceed. If not, better block some more logs down, or get a crane. A crane rental is still cheaper than a new driveway.


the Company’s who do dress for my city pretty much have to use cranes to pull bigger stuff up I dont think they care much lots of nice straight sugar maple around here.


----------



## Stihl User

Philbert said:


> By MARA H. GOTTFRIED | [email protected]
> UPDATED: October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/1...-for-man-struck-by-800-pound-log-outside-bar/
> 
> 
> 
> _Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago. The last things he remembers before it hit him on a winter afternoon in 2013 was leaving work, going to a neighborhood bar on West Seventh Street and stepping outside.
> 
> People had gathered to watch a St. Paul forestry crew cut down a massive tree across the street. Workers had removed the tree’s upper limbs and put them in the street to create a “crash pad” for the tree’s main trunk.
> 
> But when the tree toppled onto the logs, at least two of them flew across the street, striking Fladwood, then 65, in the legs, according to a lawsuit he filed against the city of St. Paul.
> 
> “I’ll never be back to normal,” Fladwood, of St. Paul, said this week. He suffered broken bones in both legs and a severed artery, leading to five surgeries and three months in the hospital.
> 
> “I’ve got titanium in both my legs. If you look at the X-ray, you wouldn’t believe all the breaks in them. My femur was just shattered like a tea cup.” The St. Paul City Council voted Wednesday to approve a $500,000 settlement to Fladwood, 69.
> 
> If Fladwood’s lawsuit had gone to trial, the central question would have been: Was the incident negligence on the city’s part?St. Paul City Attorney Samuel Clark calls it an accident.
> 
> “One of our city employees was standing right next to Mr. Fladwood, which underlines what an awful, terrible freak accident this was,” Clark said Wednesday. “It could have just as easily been one of our own employees. I think at this point everyone feels awful and is ready to move on and put this terrible accident behind the city.”
> 
> But Fladwood’s attorney said the city’s practice of using logs as a “crash pad” left spectators in harm’s way.
> 
> “I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen. “… Here’s a guy who was a completely innocent bystander, he’s not an expert in taking down trees, he’s not the one who’s supposed to anticipate this is going to happen. The process the city used was sort of a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it injured a member of the crew or a bystander like it did here.”
> 
> St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.
> 
> The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.” St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.
> 
> After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said. The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.
> 
> The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.
> 
> Jan. 4, 2013, began as a normal day for Fladwood. The independent computer consultant finished his work and dropped by the Spot Bar at the corner of Randolph Avenue and Victoria Street. Fladwood arrived at 1:30 p.m., sipped a rum and Coke, then headed outside about 10 minutes later.
> 
> At least five other people were watching as the workers prepared to pull down the American elm, which the city determined had Dutch elm disease. The tree across the street from the bar was 60 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter and estimated to be 120 to 160 years old.
> 
> Fladwood’s lawsuit said city workers did not rope off the sidewalk near the bar or tell pedestrians not to stand there, but the city said in a court document “that it used a city employee rather than a rope to keep bystanders at a safe distance from the tree felling.”
> 
> When the tree was toppled and the logs flew, the same one that struck Fladwood hit or barely missed a St. Paul worker who also fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit. The city estimated the log that struck Fladwood was 7 feet long, more than 1½ feet wide and 826 pounds.
> 
> “I don’t remember anything,” Fladwood said this week. “I remember going outside and hearing a crack or something and next thing I knew, paramedics were there.”
> 
> Fladwood, who is a Vietnam War veteran, asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center, but paramedics told him he needed to go to a trauma center because of the severity of his injuries. He wound up at Regions Hospital. “When they lifted me off the gurney at the hospital, someone said my leg was bleeding like a faucet,” Fladwood said. An artery in his leg had been severed and Fladwood required emergency surgery.
> 
> Fladwood filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Paul in 2014, but the city responded in a court document that Fladwood “assumed the risk of being near the tree felling operation” and claimed official immunity. “The city’s argument was that the decision to use the ‘crash pad’ was protected by official immunity, which doesn’t deny that what happened to him was awful, just the city wasn’t liable,” said Clark, the city attorney.
> 
> But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the facts of the case did not allow the city to claim official immunity. St. Paul filed an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which declined to take the case, and the city and Fladwood agreed to settle.
> 
> “The city refused to accept any responsibility, and we had to chase them all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,” said Olsen, Fladwood’s attorney. “… They claimed they’re immune from it, but why should the city be treated any different than anybody else who’s done something stupid like this?”
> 
> Fladwood’s permanent injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses are far greater than the settlement amount, Olsen said, but state law sets $500,000 as the maximum amount a municipality can be liable for in a tort lawsuit._
> 
> Philbert




Easily avoidable had they prepped better before the fall.
Part of Job Safety is planning for failure and then taken steps to avoid that failure.
Meaning this: Thru experience and knowledge of cause/reaction you look for what can go wrong before it does and then establish a safe environment/method for the safe completion of the job at hand.
The more weight that is felling combined with high risk work environment(harm to persons & structure) requires more prep to avoid what we see in the video.
I would always instruct my guys that there are no re-do's = take time to prep area for the felling of a large trunk.


----------



## Dave1960_Gorge

benjo75 said:


> I recently started a thread about how to keep people out of the work zone. It's one of the biggest problems I deal with on a daily basis. They walk and drive through my cones and lift up caution tape and come on in. When I jump on them they say they are just going home. I have. 200' rule on my job when applicable. I know I can't ask people 5 houses down to get out of their yard. But all operations cease when someone is in my work zone.
> 
> It looks like the tree was felled right toward the guy. We use brush for a pad but not logs. Logs will do as much damage as the tree itself. What's going to happen when a steel plate goes flipping down the sidewalk.


I agree that felling a big trunk onto a pile of logs on a street with targets nearby was a bad idea. You really don't want a high energy reaction if you can break something nearby (like a bystanders legs). Could have gone through the front door of the bar as well. A big pile of actual limbs and branches would have been better; tangled into a pile, maybe a small piece could have broken off and flew, but not a seven foot log. 

Plus, its a city job -- why not chunk it down in 4 ft. pieces onto a pad you made out of old tires? Do you really save time dropping a 25 ft. trunk? That would be 4 cuts to get it down to around 10 ft. Maybe use a 066 or 046 with a 36 or 32 inch bar and sharp full skip square cut chain... what I have used on big removals. Shallow face and back cut for each piece would have taken about the same time as moving into position to cut the next one. If your chain isn't filed for optimal speed I can see just wanting to get your hooks off. 

I was chunking down a dead grand fir once (chunks were perfect cylinders) and I hit one on the ground already; the piece I dropped (around 18 inches by 4 ft) somehow launched off one and went sideways around 15 ft., missing a big electrical box by a couple feet. No bueno.


----------



## pdqdl

Dave1960_Gorge said:


> ... Do you really save time dropping a 25 ft. trunk? That would be 4 cuts to get it down to around 10 ft. Maybe use a 066 or 046 with a 36 or 32 inch bar and sharp full skip square cut chain... what I have used on big removals. Shallow face and back cut for each piece would have taken about the same time as moving into position to cut the next one. If your chain isn't filed for optimal speed I can see just wanting to get your hooks off.
> 
> I was chunking down a dead grand fir once (chunks were perfect cylinders) and I hit one on the ground already; the piece I dropped (around 18 inches by 4 ft) somehow launched off one and went sideways around 15 ft., missing a big electrical box by a couple feet. No bueno.



Some of us save a huge amount of time. Slicing up a horizontal tree is a whole lot easier and faster than making the same cuts on the standing spar. 

No face cut needed.
No need to pull/push the cut section off.
MUCH less strenuous, with easier positioning around the log.
gravity doesn't help a horizontal chainsaw; it's even easier to lift a big saw to cutting height for a vertical cut than it is for horizontal.
almost no risk of slips or falls, certainly no risk of cutting your safeties loose.
If time is a constraint, a log laying on the ground can be cut up by several people at once.


----------



## Shaun Bowler

Philbert said:


> By MARA H. GOTTFRIED | [email protected]
> UPDATED: October 20, 2016 at 8:11 am
> 
> http://www.twincities.com/2016/10/1...-for-man-struck-by-800-pound-log-outside-bar/
> 
> 
> 
> _Delmer Fladwood never saw the 800-pound log careening toward him in St. Paul almost four years ago. The last things he remembers before it hit him on a winter afternoon in 2013 was leaving work, going to a neighborhood bar on West Seventh Street and stepping outside.
> 
> People had gathered to watch a St. Paul forestry crew cut down a massive tree across the street. Workers had removed the tree’s upper limbs and put them in the street to create a “crash pad” for the tree’s main trunk.
> 
> But when the tree toppled onto the logs, at least two of them flew across the street, striking Fladwood, then 65, in the legs, according to a lawsuit he filed against the city of St. Paul.
> 
> “I’ll never be back to normal,” Fladwood, of St. Paul, said this week. He suffered broken bones in both legs and a severed artery, leading to five surgeries and three months in the hospital.
> 
> “I’ve got titanium in both my legs. If you look at the X-ray, you wouldn’t believe all the breaks in them. My femur was just shattered like a tea cup.” The St. Paul City Council voted Wednesday to approve a $500,000 settlement to Fladwood, 69.
> 
> If Fladwood’s lawsuit had gone to trial, the central question would have been: Was the incident negligence on the city’s part?St. Paul City Attorney Samuel Clark calls it an accident.
> 
> “One of our city employees was standing right next to Mr. Fladwood, which underlines what an awful, terrible freak accident this was,” Clark said Wednesday. “It could have just as easily been one of our own employees. I think at this point everyone feels awful and is ready to move on and put this terrible accident behind the city.”
> 
> But Fladwood’s attorney said the city’s practice of using logs as a “crash pad” left spectators in harm’s way.
> 
> “I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen. “… Here’s a guy who was a completely innocent bystander, he’s not an expert in taking down trees, he’s not the one who’s supposed to anticipate this is going to happen. The process the city used was sort of a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it injured a member of the crew or a bystander like it did here.”
> 
> St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.
> 
> The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.” St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.
> 
> After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said. The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.
> 
> The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.
> 
> Jan. 4, 2013, began as a normal day for Fladwood. The independent computer consultant finished his work and dropped by the Spot Bar at the corner of Randolph Avenue and Victoria Street. Fladwood arrived at 1:30 p.m., sipped a rum and Coke, then headed outside about 10 minutes later.
> 
> At least five other people were watching as the workers prepared to pull down the American elm, which the city determined had Dutch elm disease. The tree across the street from the bar was 60 feet tall and 4 feet in diameter and estimated to be 120 to 160 years old.
> 
> Fladwood’s lawsuit said city workers did not rope off the sidewalk near the bar or tell pedestrians not to stand there, but the city said in a court document “that it used a city employee rather than a rope to keep bystanders at a safe distance from the tree felling.”
> 
> When the tree was toppled and the logs flew, the same one that struck Fladwood hit or barely missed a St. Paul worker who also fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit. The city estimated the log that struck Fladwood was 7 feet long, more than 1½ feet wide and 826 pounds.
> 
> “I don’t remember anything,” Fladwood said this week. “I remember going outside and hearing a crack or something and next thing I knew, paramedics were there.”
> 
> Fladwood, who is a Vietnam War veteran, asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center, but paramedics told him he needed to go to a trauma center because of the severity of his injuries. He wound up at Regions Hospital. “When they lifted me off the gurney at the hospital, someone said my leg was bleeding like a faucet,” Fladwood said. An artery in his leg had been severed and Fladwood required emergency surgery.
> 
> Fladwood filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Paul in 2014, but the city responded in a court document that Fladwood “assumed the risk of being near the tree felling operation” and claimed official immunity. “The city’s argument was that the decision to use the ‘crash pad’ was protected by official immunity, which doesn’t deny that what happened to him was awful, just the city wasn’t liable,” said Clark, the city attorney.
> 
> But the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the facts of the case did not allow the city to claim official immunity. St. Paul filed an appeal with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which declined to take the case, and the city and Fladwood agreed to settle.
> 
> “The city refused to accept any responsibility, and we had to chase them all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,” said Olsen, Fladwood’s attorney. “… They claimed they’re immune from it, but why should the city be treated any different than anybody else who’s done something stupid like this?”
> 
> Fladwood’s permanent injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses are far greater than the settlement amount, Olsen said, but state law sets $500,000 as the maximum amount a municipality can be liable for in a tort lawsuit._
> 
> Philbert



I am sure that if the Treeworkers were any good they would have roped it down. Easy. Especially near pedestrians. However, while taking down a Tulip Tree I dropped a FW size piece on a brush pile and a Bread Loaf size piece of wood shot about 70 feet across a street and went right through a Garage Door. Tree work is always working with "Dynamic Nature" anything can happen.


----------



## pdqdl

I pulled a tree over once, and it threw a 15lb chunk of wood 70' backwards from the direction of fall. While still tied to the rope! THEN it went over a single primary wire and hung a few feet off the ground, with the rope draped over the primary. Yep! That was exciting to fix.

Yes. Sometimes bad things happen in tree work. That probably accounts for why my worker's comp insurance is so high.


Go ahead! Ask me how you get a rope off a primary wire, tied to a dangling branch. Are YOU going to grab the rope and pull it off?


----------



## crazyhorse666

Is this actually serious? Surely it is some kind of joke that the City, or anyone else for that matter, can pay a settlement which halts any further investigation of the incident. How can anything be learnt from that approach? Any serious accident like that would be fully investigated by WorkSafe, a government body with wide reaching investigative powers, over here. They don't care about any financial settlements, their role is to investigate any serious workplace incident to determine the likely causes and what measures need to be introduced to prevent it happening again. If they find serious negligence by any party, they can recommend criminal charges. You can't buy your way out of a criminal negligence trial.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> I pulled a tree over once, and it threw a 15lb chunk of wood 70' backwards from the direction of fall. While still tied to the rope! THEN it went over a single primary wire and hung a few feet off the ground, with the rope draped over the primary. Yep! That was exciting to fix.
> 
> Yes. Sometimes bad things happen in tree work. That probably accounts for why my worker's comp insurance is so high.
> 
> 
> Go ahead! Ask me how you get a rope off a primary wire, tied to a dangling branch. Are YOU going to grab the rope and pull it off?


I assume this primary wire you speak of is an uninsulated power line? Did you know what voltage it was carrying? What type of rope? I will accept your numbers as I can't be bothered doing the physics. I would ask why the rope was attached? If it was being used to pull the tree over, how did it have 21m of slack. Even at the velocity required to travel 21m, a 70kg person could stop it with only a minor rope burn. I wouldn't be worried about your workers comp. insurance, That just covers you and whatever poor sap you have working for you. We carry a standard $30 million public liability insurance in case we hurt a civilian.


----------



## pdqdl

We were pulling a large silver maple over with a Maasdam rope winch. As I recall the rope was attached fairly high to the large dead branch going over the house. I think I rigged that branch to make sure that branch didn't have any undue stress and fall on the house as the tree went over.

When the tree crashed on the ground, the branch , now on the "top" of the tree, swung down, broke off the tip of the branch, and fractured the rope attachment. It then sprung back up (being the "top" branch of the collapsing tree), and flung _backwards_ the single point on the whole limb that the rope was still tied to. It flew high to the end of the rope, and settled over the primary wire going to the transformer supplying the farmhouse beside the tree.
I wish I had a video of it happening, it might have been my best "gone viral" video.

As to the voltage? I have no idea. I would guess not less that 7,000 volts, and more likely to be 14,000 volts. Rope was Samson Stable-braid, 1/2" (13mm?)
We were way out in the "sticks". A call to the local power grid revealed that there was no linemen available to rescue us, so I got the rope down on my own.

I wasn't hanging on to the rope. It was attached to the rigging and couldn't have even caused a rope burn. That comment about worker's comp was geared towards the unpredictability of tree work, and high probability of accidents happening even with the best safety practices. That branch could easily have landed on a worker well inside the "safe zone", had the circumstances been a bit different. Same for liability insurance and bystanders. It's just that tree workers are typically a lot closer to the action than bystanders.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> We were pulling a large silver maple over with a Maasdam rope winch. As I recall the rope was attached fairly high to the large dead branch going over the house. I think I rigged that branch to make sure that branch didn't have any undue stress and fall on the house as the tree went over.
> 
> When the tree crashed on the ground, the branch , now on the "top" of the tree, swung down, broke off the tip of the branch, and fractured the rope attachment. It then sprung back up (being the "top" branch of the collapsing tree), and flung _backwards_ the single point on the whole limb that the rope was still tied to. It flew high to the end of the rope, and settled over the primary wire going to the transformer supplying the farmhouse beside the tree.
> I wish I had a video of it happening, it might have been my best "gone viral" video.
> 
> As to the voltage? I have no idea. I would guess not less that 7,000 volts, and more likely to be 14,000 volts. Rope was Samson Stable-braid, 1/2" (13mm?)
> We were way out in the "sticks". A call to the local power grid revealed that there was no linemen available to rescue us, so I got the rope down on my own.
> 
> I wasn't hanging on to the rope. It was attached to the rigging and couldn't have even caused a rope burn. That comment about worker's comp was geared towards the unpredictability of tree work, and high probability of accidents happening even with the best safety practices. That branch could easily have landed on a worker well inside the "safe zone", had the circumstances been a bit different. Same for liability insurance and bystanders. It's just that tree workers are typically a lot closer to the action than bystanders.


Sorry, I still have no idea what you are describing. Are you saying that you climbed the tree to attach some rigging to a dead branch overhanging the house but didn't just rig it down while you were up there. You then loaded up a whole heap of tension to pull the tree the way you wanted it to go, even though there was a high voltage line within the radius of your rigging. Then you were surprised when it all went to ****, contacted the power company, whose line it was, and they said 'Just deal with it yourself' rather than 'Don't go anywhere near our asset, you're obviously an idiot' ?


----------



## pdqdl

That sure sounds like you are getting pretty high and mighty for a guy that wasn't there.
No, I never mentioned how the rope got set in the tree. _That is a silly presumption on your part. _

The rope was set high in the tree with the bucket truck. The bucket truck had reached it's height limit, but there was more tree remaining out of reach to remove, so we just dropped the tree away from the house.

I never mentioned putting a whole heap of tension on the rope. It was a gentle pull, secured by ropes. Had the knucklehead running the bucket not cut off the other side of the tree, it could have been felled without any ropes at all.

No, the wire was outside the drop zone of the tree. LIKE I TOLD YOU IN MY ORIGINAL STORY, the tree crashed and flung the branch backwards AFTER it hit the ground. While still tied off to the rope. Now that the tree was down, it had more rope to travel with, too.

I am offended by your accusation that "it all went to ****". It was a perfect drop, it worked according to plan, and it was just a bizarre event that tossed a branch in a very unusual way. THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY TALE: Bad things happen sometimes, despite your best precautions.

As to the utility company, LIKE I SAID, this location was a long ways from getting service by a lineman. We called and reported the problem. They said it would be many hours before they showed up. In the USA, the power companies have a rather rigid policy that they don't want you anywhere near their power lines. We didn't want to wait all day, so I managed the problem regardless of their plan to show up many hours later.

Here is a return question: Do you always assume that everyone else that does tree work is a dangerous moron, or did you save that specially offensive post just for me?


----------



## pdqdl

crazyhorse666 said:


> Is this actually serious? Surely it is some kind of joke that the City, or anyone else for that matter, can pay a settlement which halts any further investigation of the incident. How can anything be learnt from that approach? Any serious accident like that would be fully investigated by WorkSafe, a government body with wide reaching investigative powers, over here. They don't care about any financial settlements, their role is to investigate any serious workplace incident to determine the likely causes and what measures need to be introduced to prevent it happening again. If they find serious negligence by any party, they can recommend criminal charges. You can't buy your way out of a criminal negligence trial.



Of course it is serious.
No jokes involved, but I'll explain it to you:

There are many layers of governance in the USA, and any might become involved with that story. Since it was a city government, they are somewhat protected from liability lawsuits, but not completely. OSHA is the primary investigative work-related safety agency, but they typically do not become involved with accidents that do not involve employees. Had OSHA been involved, the liability suit would probably have waited for a determination so as to increase the value of their lawsuit.

No settlement would have stopped nor interfered with any "investigation" regarding safety rules enforcement. What happened was that the injured parties sued the city to recover their damages in a process that is referred to as civil liability lawsuit. Collectively, the lawyers involved with both sides of the litigation decided a monetary value to settle upon prior to going to court, and that was end of it. Victims got paid, guilty party paid for their damages. Lawyers took a nice cut from everyone involved.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> Of course it is serious.
> No jokes involved, but I'll explain it to you:
> 
> There are many layers of governance in the USA, and any might become involved with that story. Since it was a city government, they are somewhat protected from liability lawsuits, but not completely. OSHA is the primary investigative work-related safety agency, but they typically do not become involved with accidents that do not involve employees. Had OSHA been involved, the liability suit would probably have waited for a determination so as to increase the value of their lawsuit.
> 
> No settlement would have stopped nor interfered with any "investigation" regarding safety rules enforcement. What happened was that the injured parties sued the city to recover their damages in a process that is referred to as civil liability lawsuit. Collectively, the lawyers involved with both sides of the litigation decided a monetary value to settle upon prior to going to court, and that was end of it. Victims got paid, guilty party paid for their damages. Lawyers took a nice cut from everyone involved.


Ok. Good to know there's some form of safety regulation. Do you know why OSHA only gets involved if it is an employee that is injured? Over here it is often the opposite. If an employee is injured, it is possible for the accident to be rewritten so as to remove the dodgy, unsafe practices. The sanitised version can then be given to WorkSafe. With an accident that serious, I doubt there would be opportunity to sanitise it either way. As this accident happened six years ago, wouldn't the entire investigative report be easily accessed now? I know they can be slow at times, but those reports are usually available within 12 months, and are actually given to operators in the industry over here. All I'm hearing here is comment based on a 19 second video and a news report. As you are in the US, couldn't you access the report and post it here. I would have thought that is how you learn from someone else's mistakes, rather than having to make them yourself.


----------



## lwmibc

I expect the settlement in this case is confidential so we will never know the answer to this but--does the victim bear any personal responsibility for what happened here? He chose to stand right in the direction in which the tree was going to fall--and up against a wall yet. I admit to never in my 74 years having done that; it's just not a smart place to be. 

_“I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen._

I didn't even once say 'Here, hold my rum and coke (beer in the Cariboo) and watch this!' as is often cited as the last spoken words of a pickup driver in the Cariboo interior of BC--when falling or watching someone else drop a tree. He was 'only' a computer consultant, but isn't that even half a rocket scientist?

I wouldn't have stood there--would any of you? And I wouldn't have cared if a city employee was standing there or not; not trying to be insulting, but rocket scientists might be as rare in city employee rosters as in small-town-bar patrons. Being chicken I'd have preferred the other side of the wall.

(I liked my brother's response best--he blamed the Dutch.)


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> That sure sounds like you are getting pretty high and mighty for a guy that wasn't there.
> No, I never mentioned how the rope got set in the tree. _That is a silly presumption on your part. _
> 
> The rope was set high in the tree with the bucket truck. The bucket truck had reached it's height limit, but there was more tree remaining out of reach to remove, so we just dropped the tree away from the house.
> 
> I never mentioned putting a whole heap of tension on the rope. It was a gentle pull, secured by ropes. Had the knucklehead running the bucket not cut off the other side of the tree, it could have been felled without any ropes at all.
> 
> No, the wire was outside the drop zone of the tree. LIKE I TOLD YOU IN MY ORIGINAL STORY, the tree crashed and flung the branch backwards AFTER it hit the ground. While still tied off to the rope. Now that the tree was down, it had more rope to travel with, too.
> 
> I am offended by your accusation that "it all went to ****". It was a perfect drop, it worked according to plan, and it was just a bizarre event that tossed a branch in a very unusual way. THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY TALE: Bad things happen sometimes, despite your best precautions.
> 
> As to the utility company, LIKE I SAID, this location was a long ways from getting service by a lineman. We called and reported the problem. They said it would be many hours before they showed up. In the USA, the power companies have a rather rigid policy that they don't want you anywhere near their power lines. We didn't want to wait all day, so I managed the problem regardless of their plan to show up many hours later.
> 
> Here is a return question: Do you always assume that everyone else that does tree work is a dangerous moron, or did you save that specially offensive post just for me?


As for this post, I do apologise for being rude, I get a bit annoyed when it comes to safety and you just happened to be the person I took it out on. A personality flaw that I do try to keep in check. I also hate high voltage, I used to be ticketed to work around it, but these days I avoid it like the plague. Watched too many unpleasant videos and listened to too many nasty stories doing those tickets. I still can't figure out exactly what you are describing, but I should have recognised it as one of those, you had to be there to believe it, things. I have seen so many of them that I don't even bother trying to explain them to people any more. As you still seem to be alive, though you never know with computer technology, it appears that you manage the situation successfully. Again, I apologise for the rudeness. I shouldn't post when I'm tired and had a bad day.


----------



## crazyhorse666

lwmibc said:


> I expect the settlement in this case is confidential so we will never know the answer to this but--does the victim bear any personal responsibility for what happened here? He chose to stand right in the direction in which the tree was going to fall--and up against a wall yet. I admit to never in my 74 years having done that; it's just not a smart place to be.
> 
> _“I don’t think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out if a massive, massive elm lands on the logs in the street, you don’t know where the logs are going to go,” said Elliot Olsen._
> 
> I didn't even once say 'Here, hold my rum and coke (beer in the Cariboo) and watch this!' as is often cited as the last spoken words of a pickup driver in the Cariboo interior of BC--when falling or watching someone else drop a tree. He was 'only' a computer consultant, but isn't that even half a rocket scientist?
> 
> I wouldn't have stood there--would any of you? And I wouldn't have cared if a city employee was standing there or not; not trying to be insulting, but rocket scientists might be as rare in city employee rosters as in small-town-bar patrons. Being chicken I'd have preferred the other side of the wall.
> 
> (I liked my brother's response best--he blamed the Dutch.)


Again, I am dumbfounded that a civil liability settlement can have any influence on a safety investigation. I have very deliberately refrained from mentioning anything specific about this accident because a 19 second video and a news article are insufficient evidence to base any interpretation on.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> _*O*ccupational_ *S*afety & *H*ealth *A*dministration. That pretty much covers it.
> 
> We likely don't know where that video came from (I don't at any rate). If it was privately owned, it will remain that way.
> 
> As to reports, those will be public only as much as they can be tied to a public agency. If it was any part of a government report, the information can be had with a great deal of patience & money through the use of our Freedom of Information act. Any prrivately owned reports will almost certainly be locked down tight by the legaleze of the settlement agreement.


So, are you saying that an accident, which could easily have killed someone, will not be investigated in the public arena? How do you learn anything like that?


----------



## GrizG

DR. P. Proteus said:


> A bar in the middle of the day huh? If he had any blood left after getting hit they should have checked its alcohol level.
> 
> It looks like the whole street is shut down and blocked off.
> 
> They were working out there all day and this guy is surprised he got hit by a log?
> 
> I don't know, If I decide to spectate traffic while standing in the road can I sue when I get run over?


There used to be a local "morning bar" that catered to the third shift at a local IBM facility. Morning and mid-day drinking was the norm for them...


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> Yes, and I can prove that it usually works out that way, too. For the most part, on-the-job accidents are handled by the responsible insurance companies or civil litigation, unless it gets the attention of a criminal investigation.
> Why is "learning anything" an intrinsic and necessary requirement for you concerning accidents?
> 
> I had a tree climber die while working for me. DEAD on the job, while working under my employment. He was "life flighted" to a hospital after 3 resuscitation efforts by the paramedics and subsequently reported DOA. I never even got so much as a knock on my office door from any agency. Not even from my Worker's Comp insurance company.
> 
> I'd just as soon not go into the details of all that event here. Search Arborist site for posts by me mentioning Kenny, and you might find it.


I respect your confidentiality when it come to a person who left behind a family and friends, probably including you.
"Why is "learning anything" an intrinsic and necessary requirement for you concerning accidents?" This I don't understand. If you don't learn from your mistakes, it is likely you will make them again. It is even better if an entire industry can learn from a single mistake. I do believe that you understand safety and your duty of care but accidents do happen. I believe that when they do, they should be thoroughly investigated to determine the cause and whether they can be avoided in the future. While most professionals can be relied on to do that in house, there will always be cowboys in almost every industry. Usually they will go out of business as most people won't want to hire them. Unfortunately, they can seriously hurt, or even kill someone before that mechanism works. That is where a government safety body can act. They can introduce legally enforceable regulations. I know that they don't always get it right and often just introduce rules that generate paperwork to justify their job. But with nothing in place, what protects people from these cowboys?


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> That sure sounds like you are getting pretty high and mighty for a guy that wasn't there.
> No, I never mentioned how the rope got set in the tree. _That is a silly presumption on your part. _
> 
> The rope was set high in the tree with the bucket truck. The bucket truck had reached it's height limit, but there was more tree remaining out of reach to remove, so we just dropped the tree away from the house.
> 
> I never mentioned putting a whole heap of tension on the rope. It was a gentle pull, secured by ropes. Had the knucklehead running the bucket not cut off the other side of the tree, it could have been felled without any ropes at all.
> 
> No, the wire was outside the drop zone of the tree. LIKE I TOLD YOU IN MY ORIGINAL STORY, the tree crashed and flung the branch backwards AFTER it hit the ground. While still tied off to the rope. Now that the tree was down, it had more rope to travel with, too.
> 
> I am offended by your accusation that "it all went to ****". It was a perfect drop, it worked according to plan, and it was just a bizarre event that tossed a branch in a very unusual way. THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY TALE: Bad things happen sometimes, despite your best precautions.
> 
> As to the utility company, LIKE I SAID, this location was a long ways from getting service by a lineman. We called and reported the problem. They said it would be many hours before they showed up. In the USA, the power companies have a rather rigid policy that they don't want you anywhere near their power lines. We didn't want to wait all day, so I managed the problem regardless of their plan to show up many hours later.
> 
> Here is a return question: Do you always assume that everyone else that does tree work is a dangerous moron, or did you save that specially offensive post just for me?


Sorry, but I can't leave this alone. I will try my best to keep it professional because the kind of name calling in my last post isn't helpful for anyone. Though I would point out that you were quite happy to refer to the bucket truck operator as a 'knucklehead'. Who was running the job? Was it you and your crew or the bucket truck driver?
I assume that I can count on your statement that you had no idea what voltage that line was carrying? Why not? It was obviously within the bounds of your work zone, otherwise your rope couldn't have touched it? I accept that there are situations where it is impossible to clear a sufficient work area, but you should still be aware of what is within that area, such as high voltage power lines. How could you know how far away you need to be from a power line if you don't know the voltage. When working with cranes in an urban setting, it is impossible to clear a radius that encompasses the height of the boom, if it were to fail. We are fully aware that there is likely to be a large number of people in that radius and not many people survive being hit by a boom. That is why cranes are so strictly regulated and anyone using them needs to jump through a lot of hoops. For me, the whole point of clearing a work areas is to account for accidents. If you only cleared the area where you planned for the tree to fall, your safety zone would only need to be very small. Referring to that video, which I have tried to avoid mentioning specifically, I assume that they didn't expect a log to fly out sideways and that is why someone got hurt? I would suggest that that is the definition of an accident. No one goes off to work in the morning planning to kill or seriously injure some one. Maybe it's different in the US?
Another part of your recollection that I can't figure out. If you felled the tree away from the house and this limb travelled backwards, does that mean that it cleared the house and then made it over this power line? I accept a little creative license when telling a story, it can actually add weight to the safety concern being raised. However, if you push it too far your warning loses it's credibility.
I will leave it there as I think this is becoming more of a rant than a constructive conversation.


----------



## crazyhorse666

Are you familiar with this kind of document?


----------



## Stihl User

Philbert said:


> I'll ask you guys :
> 
> Is using other limbs to cushion a falling tree 'standard practice'?
> 
> Ever seen a limb that big fly that far?
> 
> Would you have thought that that guy was far enough away (before reading the story / watching the video?
> 
> Philbert



When you are dropping a stick of that size and in that area:
1.) No one should be in or around the drop zone = especially in the direction of felling.
2.) Cut 20'- 25" lengths from wood already on the ground and then build a 'Landing Pad' by laying pieces flat with cut side up/down. Prevents 'rolling logs' as in the video
3.) When in doubt = Keep chunking that stick

One time we were craning a Triple Hemlock off a hill down to the Road. We already had one stick down on the road and we had the road partially coned off.
Next thing I see is a mom, with child in stroller, demanding she pass thru as this was her daily routine.
Had to yell her away - she went and called cops. By the time they got there we were done.

#1 RULE - Have personnel watching the drop zone for unwanted guests = like cyclists and cars that do not want to stop.


----------



## crazyhorse666

Stihl User said:


> When you are dropping a stick of that size and in that area:
> 1.) No one should be in or around the drop zone = especially in the direction of felling.
> 2.) Cut 20'- 25" lengths from wood already on the ground and then build a 'Landing Pad' by laying pieces flat with cut side up/down. Prevents 'rolling logs' as in the video
> 3.) When in doubt = Keep chunking that stick
> 
> One time we were craning a Triple Hemlock off a hill down to the Road. We already had one stick down on the road and we had the road partially coned off.
> Next thing I see is a mom, with child in stroller, demanding she pass thru as this was her daily routine.
> Had to yell her away - she went and called cops. By the time they got there we were done.
> 
> #1 RULE - Have personnel watching the drop zone for unwanted guests = like cyclists and cars that do not want to stop.


Good to hear a little sanity. As annoying as it is, people will always breach any kind of cordon that is not reinforced by a person willing to physically stop them. Though, maybe you could build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it? Sorry, couldn't help myself. That was meant as a joke and did not refer to any folliclely? challenged individuals. I have had to physically stop people and it is a sh** experience. I think physically restraining a fully grown adult as they scream obscenities at you would not be pleasant for anyone. Especially when you are doing it for their own safety. Over here, I think if the cops rocked up, it would to be to arrest and charge her.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> I was called in by another tree service as expert to assist completion.
> 
> 
> I'm not a lineman nor an electrical engineer
> 
> 
> 
> Too many questions. It was a saga that related a simple point: bad things can happen, even when all precautions have been exercised.
> If you still have questions, go back and read my explanations again. It's all there.


Sorry, you would need to draw me a picture. I have made several attempts to draw such a picture but none of them were able to show that what you described was physically possible. Was the branch and attached line thrown 21 metres from the base of the tree? Or from some other point? I don't believe that was mentioned in any of your posts. That would at least provide me with the distance between the tree and the powerline. If you also included the height of the tree, I would know it's potential fall radius.
"Go ahead! Ask me how you get a rope off a primary wire, tied to a dangling branch. Are YOU going to grab the rope and pull it off?". Is this the kind of question that you are getting upset with me asking?


----------



## crazyhorse666

Stihl User said:


> When you are dropping a stick of that size and in that area:
> 1.) No one should be in or around the drop zone = especially in the direction of felling.
> 2.) Cut 20'- 25" lengths from wood already on the ground and then build a 'Landing Pad' by laying pieces flat with cut side up/down. Prevents 'rolling logs' as in the video
> 3.) When in doubt = Keep chunking that stick
> 
> One time we were craning a Triple Hemlock off a hill down to the Road. We already had one stick down on the road and we had the road partially coned off.
> Next thing I see is a mom, with child in stroller, demanding she pass thru as this was her daily routine.
> Had to yell her away - she went and called cops. By the time they got there we were done.
> 
> #1 RULE - Have personnel watching the drop zone for unwanted guests = like cyclists and cars that do not want to stop.


Does that like suggest that I am forgiven for 'not' insulting certain follicularly? challenged individuals?


----------



## Stihl User

crazyhorse666 said:


> Good to hear a little sanity. As annoying as it is, people will always breach any kind of cordon that is not reinforced by a person willing to physically stop them. Though, maybe you could build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it? Sorry, couldn't help myself. That was meant as a joke and did not refer to any folliclely? challenged individuals. I have had to physically stop people and it is a sh** experience. I think physically restraining a fully grown adult as they scream obscenities at you would not be pleasant for anyone. Especially when you are doing it for their own safety. Over here, I think if the cops rocked up, it would to be to arrest and charge her.



This crane job occurred 'unplanned' and was a job that sprouted that very morning/instant. We had no time to notify police for their approval of the job and it was a *very short duration* *for the crane* (30 - 45 minutes and done).
This was a private community, of which I am a member, and not a main thoroughfare.
Cop did show up when we were finished and was in more agreement with the nutcase woman then with reality.
She must of had their ears ringing for some time.


----------



## crazyhorse666

Stihl User said:


> This crane job occurred 'unplanned' and was a job that sprouted that very morning/instant. We had no time to notify police for their approval of the job and it was a *very short duration* *for the crane* (30 - 45 minutes and done).
> This was a private community, of which I am a member, and not a main thoroughfare.
> Cop did show up when we were finished and was in more agreement with the nutcase woman then with reality.
> She must of had their ears ringing for some time.


Sadly, that tends to occur with highly vocal individuals. People will just agree with them to get them to shut up. Luckily for you, you were finished and could fu** off out of that conversation. Though, if you are both members of the same community, you will probably have to tolerate her 'right' to do whatever she wants to, irrespective of the situation. One of the consequences of your countries belief in 'inalienable rights'.


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> Sadly, that tends to occur with highly vocal individuals. People will just agree with them to get them to shut up. Luckily for you, you were finished and could fu** off out of that conversation. Though, if you are both members of the same community, you will probably have to tolerate her 'right' to do whatever she wants to, irrespective of the situation. One of the consequences of your countries belief in 'inalienable rights'.


I'm sure that WILL get me in trouble.


----------



## GrizG

Stihl User said:


> This crane job occurred 'unplanned' and was a job that sprouted that very morning/instant. We had no time to notify police for their approval of the job and it was a *very short duration* *for the crane* (30 - 45 minutes and done).
> This was a private community, of which I am a member, and not a main thoroughfare.
> Cop did show up when we were finished and was in more agreement with the nutcase woman then with reality.
> She must of had there ears ringing for some time.


A twist would have been that she be arrested for endangering her children.  

I plan on people ignoring the warning signs, ropes, etc. installed when I'm doing tree work on land trust and rail trail properties... It's like the sound of the chainsaw creates a zombie apocalypse like reaction in people. They are drawn right into the danger zone while I'm cutting. I work with a cutting partner and you'd think that the physical indicators and him waving people to stop would be enough... nope. This problem is why I cut almost every tree with an open face cut, plunge cut, and trigger. I need the trigger to give me one more chance to make sure no zombies walked or bicycled into the fall zone.


----------



## crazyhorse666

GrizG said:


> A twist would have been that she be arrested for endangering her children.
> 
> I plan on people ignoring the warning signs, ropes, etc. installed when I'm doing tree work on land trust and rail trail properties... It's like the sound of the chainsaw creates a zombie apocalypse like reaction in people. They are drawn right into the danger zone while I'm cutting. I work with a cutting partner and you'd think that the physical indicators and him waving people to stop would be enough... nope. This problem is why I cut almost every tree with an open face cut, plunge cut, and trigger. I need the trigger to give me one more chance to make sure no zombies walked or bicycled into the fall zone.


Is that two sane people in one country? Must be some kind of record! 
You probably realise that it is getting late where I am so my posts should come with a disclaimer to that effect.


----------



## Stihl User

GrizG said:


> A twist would have been that she be arrested for endangering her children.
> 
> I plan on people ignoring the warning signs, ropes, etc. installed when I'm doing tree work on land trust and rail trail properties... It's like the sound of the chainsaw creates a zombie apocalypse like reaction in people. They are drawn right into the danger zone while I'm cutting. I work with a cutting partner and you'd think that the physical indicators and him waving people to stop would be enough... nope. This problem is why I cut almost every tree with an open face cut, plunge cut, and trigger. I need the trigger to give me one more chance to make sure no zombies walked or bicycled into the fall zone.



That was exactly what I said to the cop - "woman endangering the welfare of her child" and he simmered down and we moved on.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> If you don't understand my descriptions up 'til now, then it is likely that you lack any relevant experience at doing tree work. If that is the case, then let me assure you it happened, it was a startling combination of physical forces that had a surprising and dangerous outcome. Think of it as a rogue wave that occurs occasionally in tree work.
> I'm not going to offer any more explanations, as the previous ones were adequate for any experienced tree worker to understand who is qualified to debate these kinds of conversations.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you have not asked any questions of that nature.


Ok, please understand that it is quite late over here, but I will attempt to answer that politely.
Would you accept 20 years of experience in the tree industry as sufficient? I might add that 12 of those years were in an aspect of arboriculture that involves significantly more risk than simple felling/dismantling of trees.
I am sorry, but I don't proscribe to your rogue wave theory. If something happens that you didn't even believe possible then you shouldn't be operating in the industry. I have seen all sorts of things I didn't think would occur, but nothing that I didn't believe possible.
I think I will leave it there. You seem to be quite touchy in regards to your belief that nothing should attempt to be learned from accidents when they occur. 
"Why is "learning anything" an intrinsic and necessary requirement for you concerning accidents?"


----------



## crazyhorse666

I guess if you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.

3. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Delmer Fladwood stood outside on a City sidewalk to watch as the City’s forestry crew
took the final portion of a large tree trunk to the ground. Teske Aff. ¶ 7. Once only the main
trunk remained, the crew leader, Mr. Teske, then decided whether a crash pad would be used.
Id. at ¶ 5. There are no specific guidelines or policies for the use of crash pads. Kruse Aff. ¶ 3.
The ANSI standards do not require the creation of crash pads, nor do they require protecting the
street at all. Teske Dep. 23, 25. The material to be used in a crash pad are also not addressed by
ANSI standards. Teske Dep. 23, 25. But the use of crash pads is an option if it is deemed
appropriate by the crew leader to protect a surface. Kruse Aff. ¶ 3. Mr. Teske directed his
forestry crew to create a crash pad made of large, heavy branches from the downed tree to absorb
the impact of the falling trunk. Teske Aff. ¶ 6.
The forestry crew constantly monitored the work zone throughout the day and kept
people outside of the work zone by telling them to stand back if they were too close. Smith Dep.
14-15; Perkins Dep. Ex. 4, at 5-7. Before the main trunk was dropped, the City’s forestry crew
leader ensured that the bystanders, including Mr. Fladwood, were in a safe location. He took
into consideration many factors including the location and angle of the tree, the weather, the
equipment available to the crew, and the safety of the crew and bystanders. Teske Aff. ¶ 4.
Unfortunately, when the tree trunk landed on the crash pad, one of the large branches
shot out toward the crew leader and Mr. Fladwood. Teske Dep. 19, 28. The branch struck and
severely injured Mr. Fladwood. Mr. Fladwood and his wife initiated this lawsuit alleging that
the City was negligent in using a crash pad made from large, heavy branches and by not asking Mr. Fladwood to stand in different location. Complt. ¶ 62. The district court found that the precise governmental conduct at issue that was protected by official immunity was (1) the crew leader’s decision whether to use a crash pad and how it should be constructed, and (2) the crew leader’s determination as to where bystanders should be allowed to stand outside the safe work zone. Add. 12-15. The Court of Appeals majority decision reversed and found that the overarching ministerial duty of taking down a tree was the governmental conduct at issue and thus, official immunity did not apply. Add. 1-7. The dissenting opinion, however, stated that following the Supreme Court precedent for official immunity analysis by identifying the precise governmental conduct at issue leads to the conclusion that the conduct at issue was discretionary in nature and thus, vicarious official immunity protects the City of St. Paul from liability for the actions of its forestry crew leader. Add. 8-11.


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> I guess if you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.
> 
> 3. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
> Delmer Fladwood stood outside on a City sidewalk to watch as the City’s forestry crew
> took the final portion of a large tree trunk to the ground. Teske Aff. ¶ 7. Once only the main
> trunk remained, the crew leader, Mr. Teske, then decided whether a crash pad would be used.
> Id. at ¶ 5. There are no specific guidelines or policies for the use of crash pads. Kruse Aff. ¶ 3.
> The ANSI standards do not require the creation of crash pads, nor do they require protecting the
> street at all. Teske Dep. 23, 25. The material to be used in a crash pad are also not addressed by
> ANSI standards. Teske Dep. 23, 25. But the use of crash pads is an option if it is deemed
> appropriate by the crew leader to protect a surface. Kruse Aff. ¶ 3. Mr. Teske directed his
> forestry crew to create a crash pad made of large, heavy branches from the downed tree to absorb
> the impact of the falling trunk. Teske Aff. ¶ 6.
> The forestry crew constantly monitored the work zone throughout the day and kept
> people outside of the work zone by telling them to stand back if they were too close. Smith Dep.
> 14-15; Perkins Dep. Ex. 4, at 5-7. Before the main trunk was dropped, the City’s forestry crew
> leader ensured that the bystanders, including Mr. Fladwood, were in a safe location. He took
> into consideration many factors including the location and angle of the tree, the weather, the
> equipment available to the crew, and the safety of the crew and bystanders. Teske Aff. ¶ 4.
> Unfortunately, when the tree trunk landed on the crash pad, one of the large branches
> shot out toward the crew leader and Mr. Fladwood. Teske Dep. 19, 28. The branch struck and
> severely injured Mr. Fladwood. Mr. Fladwood and his wife initiated this lawsuit alleging that
> the City was negligent in using a crash pad made from large, heavy branches and by not asking Mr. Fladwood to stand in different location. Complt. ¶ 62. The district court found that the precise governmental conduct at issue that was protected by official immunity was (1) the crew leader’s decision whether to use a crash pad and how it should be constructed, and (2) the crew leader’s determination as to where bystanders should be allowed to stand outside the safe work zone. Add. 12-15. The Court of Appeals majority decision reversed and found that the overarching ministerial duty of taking down a tree was the governmental conduct at issue and thus, official immunity did not apply. Add. 1-7. The dissenting opinion, however, stated that following the Supreme Court precedent for official immunity analysis by identifying the precise governmental conduct at issue leads to the conclusion that the conduct at issue was discretionary in nature and thus, vicarious official immunity protects the City of St. Paul from liability for the actions of its forestry crew leader. Add. 8-11.


U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KIRK, Judge Appellant, Delmer V. Fladwood, was seriously injured by a log that hit him during a City of St. Paul tree-removal project. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, City of St. Paul, on the basis of vicarious official immunity. Fladwood contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because the act of removing a tree is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty. We reverse and remand. FACTS In January 2013, the City of St. Paul sent its forestry crew to remove a tree at the corner of Randolph Ave. and Victoria St., across the street from the Spot Bar. The crew removed the top portion of the tree and planned to fell the remaining trunk into the street. The crew leader decided to use logs from the top portion of the tree, each weighing several hundred pounds, to establish a “crash pad” for the trunk. A crash pad is a pile of logs placed to cushion a tree’s fall in order to prevent damage to streets and sidewalks. The crew routinely used crash pads at the time the tree was removed. The crew leader believed that a crash pad was necessary to protect the street, and the crew constructed the crash pad in the middle of the street where they expected the tree’s remaining trunk to fall. Several bystanders watched as the forestry crew removed the tree. American National Standards Institute tree-removal standards, which the City of St. Paul has adopted, require bystanders to remain outside of a safe-work zone when a tree is removed. The safework zone extends to a radius of twice the height of a tree when a tree is removed. The crew is responsible for keeping bystanders outside of the safe-work zone. The tree in this case was approximately 27 feet tall when it was removed, thus the safe-work zone extended 54 feet from the base of the tree. Fladwood was at the Spot Bar for drinks with friends and had stepped outside just before the tree fell. He was standing behind the crew leader and outside of the safe-work zone. The crew leader knew Fladwood was behind him and outside of the safe-work zone, and did not ask Fladwood to move further away because he believed Fladwood was in a safe place. The trunk fell onto the crash pad as expected. But a large log unexpectedly shot out from the crash pad, striking both the crew leader and Fladwood and knocking them to the ground. Although the log did not injure the crew leader, it seriously injured Fladwood. Fladwood was taken to the hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery to repair an artery in his leg. Fladwood spent more than three months in the hospital and underwent five surgeries. In October 2014, Fladwood sued the City of St. Paul alleging negligence. The City of St. Paul moved for summary judgment, arguing that vicarious official immunity bars Fladwood’s claim. The district court granted the City of St. Paul’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that vicarious official immunity applies because the crew leader’s decisions to construct the crash pad and to refrain from moving Fladwood any further from the safe-work zone involved judgment and discretion. Fladwood appeals.


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
> KIRK, Judge Appellant, Delmer V. Fladwood, was seriously injured by a log that hit him during a City of St. Paul tree-removal project. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, City of St. Paul, on the basis of vicarious official immunity. Fladwood contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because the act of removing a tree is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty. We reverse and remand. FACTS In January 2013, the City of St. Paul sent its forestry crew to remove a tree at the corner of Randolph Ave. and Victoria St., across the street from the Spot Bar. The crew removed the top portion of the tree and planned to fell the remaining trunk into the street. The crew leader decided to use logs from the top portion of the tree, each weighing several hundred pounds, to establish a “crash pad” for the trunk. A crash pad is a pile of logs placed to cushion a tree’s fall in order to prevent damage to streets and sidewalks. The crew routinely used crash pads at the time the tree was removed. The crew leader believed that a crash pad was necessary to protect the street, and the crew constructed the crash pad in the middle of the street where they expected the tree’s remaining trunk to fall. Several bystanders watched as the forestry crew removed the tree. American National Standards Institute tree-removal standards, which the City of St. Paul has adopted, require bystanders to remain outside of a safe-work zone when a tree is removed. The safework zone extends to a radius of twice the height of a tree when a tree is removed. The crew is responsible for keeping bystanders outside of the safe-work zone. The tree in this case was approximately 27 feet tall when it was removed, thus the safe-work zone extended 54 feet from the base of the tree. Fladwood was at the Spot Bar for drinks with friends and had stepped outside just before the tree fell. He was standing behind the crew leader and outside of the safe-work zone. The crew leader knew Fladwood was behind him and outside of the safe-work zone, and did not ask Fladwood to move further away because he believed Fladwood was in a safe place. The trunk fell onto the crash pad as expected. But a large log unexpectedly shot out from the crash pad, striking both the crew leader and Fladwood and knocking them to the ground. Although the log did not injure the crew leader, it seriously injured Fladwood. Fladwood was taken to the hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery to repair an artery in his leg. Fladwood spent more than three months in the hospital and underwent five surgeries. In October 2014, Fladwood sued the City of St. Paul alleging negligence. The City of St. Paul moved for summary judgment, arguing that vicarious official immunity bars Fladwood’s claim. The district court granted the City of St. Paul’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that vicarious official immunity applies because the crew leader’s decisions to construct the crash pad and to refrain from moving Fladwood any further from the safe-work zone involved judgment and discretion. Fladwood appeals.


D E C I S I O N On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Ruiz v. 1st Fid. Loan Servicing, LLC, 829 N.W.2d 53, 56 (Minn. 2013). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002). A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence that could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997). The doctrine of official immunity protects public officials against personal liability for discretionary conduct unless the public official is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong. Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014). The purpose of the doctrine is to “enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment.” Id. The doctrine “must be narrowly construed in light of the fact that it is an exception to the general rule of governmental liability.” Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn. 1982) (quotations omitted). A government entity may claim vicarious official immunity for the conduct of its public officials when the official’s conduct requires judgment or discretion, even at an operational level. Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462; Schroeder v. St. Louis County, 708 N.W.2d 497, 508 (Minn. 2006). Examining whether official immunity applies requires the district court to identify the conduct at issue and then to determine whether the conduct is discretionary or ministerial. Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462. We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s determination that official immunity applies. Id. We begin by identifying the conduct at issue. Fladwood argues that the conduct at issue is the “overall act” of “cutting down a tree.” The City of St. Paul contends that the conduct at issue includes the crew’s (1) decision to construct a crash pad and (2) decisions regarding where bystanders could stand outside of the safe-work zone. The supreme court’s opinion in Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242 (1976), is instructive in identifying the conduct at issue. In Williamson, the supreme court considered how to characterize the conduct of state employees tasked with removing a house. 310 Minn. at 60-61, 245 N.W.2d at 243-44. Although the court acknowledged that removing a house involves many individual discretionary decisions, the court characterized the conduct at issue as the “simple and definite,” overall task of “remov[ing] a house.” Id. at 61, 245 N.W.2d at 244. This case is analogous to Williamson. Here, as in Williamson, the crew faced many individual discretionary decisions in determining how to remove the tree. But the crew’s overall task was “simple and definite,” to remove the tree. See id. For this reason, we conclude that the overall task of removing a tree is the appropriate characterization of the conduct at issue. We next consider whether the conduct at issue is discretionary or ministerial. Discretionary conduct involves “individual professional judgment that necessarily reflects the professional goal and factors of a situation.” Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (quotations omitted). Ministerial conduct “is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Id. (quotations omitted).1 The City of St. Paul argues that the conduct at issue is discretionary because removing a tree involves discretionary decisions based on the forestry crew’s professional judgment. But the mere fact that conduct requires some discretionary decision-making does not render the entire act to be discretionary. See Cairl, 323 N.W.2d at 23 (“[A]lmost every act involves some measure of discretion, and yet undoubtedly not every act of government is entitled to discretionary immunity.”); Williamson, 310 Minn. at 61, 245 N.W.2d at 244 (noting “almost any act involves some measure of freedom of choice” but that did “not entitle [the officials] to immunity from suit”). Further, “[o]fficial immunity typically protects the conduct of public officials responding to uncertain circumstances that require the weighing of competing values on the grounds that these circumstances offer little time for reflection and often involve incomplete and confusing information such that the situation requires the exercise of significant, independent judgment and discretion.” Shariss v. City of Bloomington, 852 N.W.2d 278, 282 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotations omitted). Minnesota courts are more likely to find official immunity in cases involving time pressure and quick decisions and less likely to find immunity in cases where public officials have ample time for consideration. Compare Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (noting immunity protects police officers responding to emergencies because there is “little time for reflection”), with Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 1998) (“Nothing about that decision requires the kind of split-second decision-making involved in a police officer deciding, for instance, whether to begin or continue a high-speed chase.”). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Fladwood, we conclude that the conduct in this case was ministerial. A forestry supervisor compiled a list of trees for the crew to remove, which included the tree at issue. The crew met to formulate a plan before removing the tree and had plenty of time to consider whether to use a crash pad, where to place the crash pad, and where to position bystanders before letting the tree fall. The crew’s task to remove the tree was “absolute, certain, and imperative,” requiring “merely the execution of [that] specific duty.” Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (quotations omitted). Hence, the City of St. Paul is not protected by vicarious official immunity and the district court erred by granting summary judgment on that basis. Reversed and remanded.


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> D E C I S I O N On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Ruiz v. 1st Fid. Loan Servicing, LLC, 829 N.W.2d 53, 56 (Minn. 2013). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002). A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence that could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997). The doctrine of official immunity protects public officials against personal liability for discretionary conduct unless the public official is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong. Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014). The purpose of the doctrine is to “enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment.” Id. The doctrine “must be narrowly construed in light of the fact that it is an exception to the general rule of governmental liability.” Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn. 1982) (quotations omitted). A government entity may claim vicarious official immunity for the conduct of its public officials when the official’s conduct requires judgment or discretion, even at an operational level. Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462; Schroeder v. St. Louis County, 708 N.W.2d 497, 508 (Minn. 2006). Examining whether official immunity applies requires the district court to identify the conduct at issue and then to determine whether the conduct is discretionary or ministerial. Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462. We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s determination that official immunity applies. Id. We begin by identifying the conduct at issue. Fladwood argues that the conduct at issue is the “overall act” of “cutting down a tree.” The City of St. Paul contends that the conduct at issue includes the crew’s (1) decision to construct a crash pad and (2) decisions regarding where bystanders could stand outside of the safe-work zone. The supreme court’s opinion in Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242 (1976), is instructive in identifying the conduct at issue. In Williamson, the supreme court considered how to characterize the conduct of state employees tasked with removing a house. 310 Minn. at 60-61, 245 N.W.2d at 243-44. Although the court acknowledged that removing a house involves many individual discretionary decisions, the court characterized the conduct at issue as the “simple and definite,” overall task of “remov[ing] a house.” Id. at 61, 245 N.W.2d at 244. This case is analogous to Williamson. Here, as in Williamson, the crew faced many individual discretionary decisions in determining how to remove the tree. But the crew’s overall task was “simple and definite,” to remove the tree. See id. For this reason, we conclude that the overall task of removing a tree is the appropriate characterization of the conduct at issue. We next consider whether the conduct at issue is discretionary or ministerial. Discretionary conduct involves “individual professional judgment that necessarily reflects the professional goal and factors of a situation.” Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (quotations omitted). Ministerial conduct “is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Id. (quotations omitted).1 The City of St. Paul argues that the conduct at issue is discretionary because removing a tree involves discretionary decisions based on the forestry crew’s professional judgment. But the mere fact that conduct requires some discretionary decision-making does not render the entire act to be discretionary. See Cairl, 323 N.W.2d at 23 (“[A]lmost every act involves some measure of discretion, and yet undoubtedly not every act of government is entitled to discretionary immunity.”); Williamson, 310 Minn. at 61, 245 N.W.2d at 244 (noting “almost any act involves some measure of freedom of choice” but that did “not entitle [the officials] to immunity from suit”). Further, “[o]fficial immunity typically protects the conduct of public officials responding to uncertain circumstances that require the weighing of competing values on the grounds that these circumstances offer little time for reflection and often involve incomplete and confusing information such that the situation requires the exercise of significant, independent judgment and discretion.” Shariss v. City of Bloomington, 852 N.W.2d 278, 282 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotations omitted). Minnesota courts are more likely to find official immunity in cases involving time pressure and quick decisions and less likely to find immunity in cases where public officials have ample time for consideration. Compare Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (noting immunity protects police officers responding to emergencies because there is “little time for reflection”), with Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 1998) (“Nothing about that decision requires the kind of split-second decision-making involved in a police officer deciding, for instance, whether to begin or continue a high-speed chase.”). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Fladwood, we conclude that the conduct in this case was ministerial. A forestry supervisor compiled a list of trees for the crew to remove, which included the tree at issue. The crew met to formulate a plan before removing the tree and had plenty of time to consider whether to use a crash pad, where to place the crash pad, and where to position bystanders before letting the tree fall. The crew’s task to remove the tree was “absolute, certain, and imperative,” requiring “merely the execution of [that] specific duty.” Vassallo, 842 N.W.2d at 462 (quotations omitted). Hence, the City of St. Paul is not protected by vicarious official immunity and the district court erred by granting summary judgment on that basis. Reversed and remanded.



JOHNSON, Judge (dissenting) I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court. The district court correctly concluded that the City of St. Paul is entitled to the protections of the doctrine of vicarious official immunity. A. Approximately a quarter century ago, Justice Simonett wrote that, in determining whether the doctrine of official immunity applies, “it is essential to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue.” Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn. 1993) (emphasis added) (citing Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County, 422 N.W.2d 713, 722 (Minn. 1988)). In the intervening years, the supreme court consistently has reiterated that statement and applied that method of analysis when determining whether challenged governmental conduct is discretionary or ministerial in nature. See Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475, 490-91 (Minn. 2006); Thompson v. City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669, 673-74 (Minn. 2006); Sletten v. Ramsey County, 675 N.W.2d 291, 306-07 (Minn. 2004); Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Minn. 1998); Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn. 1996); Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 1994). In this case, the district court properly applied the supreme court’s well-established caselaw by identifying two precise types of governmental conduct: (1) “Teske’s decision as to whether or not to use a crash pad and how it should be constructed,” and (2) “Teske’s determination as to where bystanders should be allowed to stand outside of the safe work zone.” In light of the detailed evidence in the summary-judgment record, the proper analysis leads to the conclusion that the precise governmental conduct at issue in this case is discretionary in nature. With respect to the first type of challenged conduct, the City’s policies and practices neither require nor forbid the use of a crash pad but, rather, allow crew leaders to decide, based on the particular circumstances, whether a crash pad is appropriate to protect the surface of a street and to maintain control of a felled tree and, if so, how to construct a crash pad. Teske, the crew leader, decided to use a crash pad on January 4, 2013, after considering the location and angle of the tree, the location of surrounding structures, the weather, the available equipment, and the goal of ensuring the safety of the crew and bystanders. With respect to the second type of challenged conduct, the City’s long-standing policy is to follow a national industry standard (specifically, ANSI Z133), which calls for a circular safe zone whose radius is two times the length of the tree trunk being felled. Teske complied with this standard by ensuring that Fladwood and all other persons were more than 54 feet from the base of the 27-foot tree trunk. Fladwood cannot defeat the city’s assertion of vicarious official immunity because he cannot identify a duty that Teske failed to perform that was “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” See Vassallo by Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> JOHNSON, Judge (dissenting) I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court. The district court correctly concluded that the City of St. Paul is entitled to the protections of the doctrine of vicarious official immunity. A. Approximately a quarter century ago, Justice Simonett wrote that, in determining whether the doctrine of official immunity applies, “it is essential to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue.” Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn. 1993) (emphasis added) (citing Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County, 422 N.W.2d 713, 722 (Minn. 1988)). In the intervening years, the supreme court consistently has reiterated that statement and applied that method of analysis when determining whether challenged governmental conduct is discretionary or ministerial in nature. See Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475, 490-91 (Minn. 2006); Thompson v. City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669, 673-74 (Minn. 2006); Sletten v. Ramsey County, 675 N.W.2d 291, 306-07 (Minn. 2004); Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Minn. 1998); Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn. 1996); Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 1994). In this case, the district court properly applied the supreme court’s well-established caselaw by identifying two precise types of governmental conduct: (1) “Teske’s decision as to whether or not to use a crash pad and how it should be constructed,” and (2) “Teske’s determination as to where bystanders should be allowed to stand outside of the safe work zone.” In light of the detailed evidence in the summary-judgment record, the proper analysis leads to the conclusion that the precise governmental conduct at issue in this case is discretionary in nature. With respect to the first type of challenged conduct, the City’s policies and practices neither require nor forbid the use of a crash pad but, rather, allow crew leaders to decide, based on the particular circumstances, whether a crash pad is appropriate to protect the surface of a street and to maintain control of a felled tree and, if so, how to construct a crash pad. Teske, the crew leader, decided to use a crash pad on January 4, 2013, after considering the location and angle of the tree, the location of surrounding structures, the weather, the available equipment, and the goal of ensuring the safety of the crew and bystanders. With respect to the second type of challenged conduct, the City’s long-standing policy is to follow a national industry standard (specifically, ANSI Z133), which calls for a circular safe zone whose radius is two times the length of the tree trunk being felled. Teske complied with this standard by ensuring that Fladwood and all other persons were more than 54 feet from the base of the 27-foot tree trunk. Fladwood cannot defeat the city’s assertion of vicarious official immunity because he cannot identify a duty that Teske failed to perform that was “absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” See Vassallo by Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).


Thus, the challenged governmental conduct is discretionary in nature, which means that the city is protected by the doctrine of vicarious official immunity. A contrary conclusion does not follow from Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242 (1976) (per curiam). The Williamson opinion predates the line of cases cited above and, accordingly, does not anticipate the need “to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue.” See Olson, 509 N.W.2d at 371 (emphasis added). In addition, the Williamson opinion does not discuss any factors that might have guided the governmental employees’ exercise of discretion, likely because no such evidence or argument was offered or because the governmental employees’ conduct could not have been justified by any discretionary decisionmaking. See 310 Minn. at 60-62, 245 N.W.2d at 243-44. For whatever reason, the Williamson opinion does not contain the analysis that is required by the supreme court’s more recent opinions. Furthermore, the facts of Williamson have no more than a superficial similarity to the facts of this case. The demolition of the house in Williamson did not involve the use of a crash pad and did not involve any decision about where bystanders should stand during the demolition process. See id. at 60, 245 N.W.2d at 243. In short, Williamson does not preclude or curtail the analysis that is prescribed by the supreme court’s opinions in Olson and subsequent cases. Fladwood also contends, in part, that official immunity does not apply because the challenged governmental conduct did not require split-second decisionmaking. Fladwood’s contention is contrary to the purpose of official immunity, which is “to protect public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair effective performance of their duties.” Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 655 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted). This purpose may be served in cases that do not involve split-second decisionmaking. Indeed, both the supreme court and this court have applied the doctrine of official immunity in cases in which the challenged governmental conduct did not involve split-second decisionmaking. See, e.g., Sletten, 675 N.W.2d at 300-08 (maintenance and regulation of compost site that allegedly contaminated groundwater); Olson, 509 N.W.2d at 371-72 (formulation of case plan for child in need of protection); Semler v. Klang, 743 N.W.2d 273, 277-79 (Minn. App. 2007) (notification of presence of sex offender), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 2008); Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863-66 (Minn. App. 2004) (abatement of “garbage house”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004); Huttner v. State, 637 N.W.2d 278, 284-86 (Minn. App. 2001) (monitoring of compliance with treatment plan to control mental illness), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2001). I would not alter the analysis prescribed by Olson and subsequent opinions on the ground that Teske’s conduct did not require splitsecond decisionmaking. In sum, I would affirm the well-reasoned decision of the district court.


----------



## crazyhorse666

crazyhorse666 said:


> Thus, the challenged governmental conduct is discretionary in nature, which means that the city is protected by the doctrine of vicarious official immunity. A contrary conclusion does not follow from Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242 (1976) (per curiam). The Williamson opinion predates the line of cases cited above and, accordingly, does not anticipate the need “to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue.” See Olson, 509 N.W.2d at 371 (emphasis added). In addition, the Williamson opinion does not discuss any factors that might have guided the governmental employees’ exercise of discretion, likely because no such evidence or argument was offered or because the governmental employees’ conduct could not have been justified by any discretionary decisionmaking. See 310 Minn. at 60-62, 245 N.W.2d at 243-44. For whatever reason, the Williamson opinion does not contain the analysis that is required by the supreme court’s more recent opinions. Furthermore, the facts of Williamson have no more than a superficial similarity to the facts of this case. The demolition of the house in Williamson did not involve the use of a crash pad and did not involve any decision about where bystanders should stand during the demolition process. See id. at 60, 245 N.W.2d at 243. In short, Williamson does not preclude or curtail the analysis that is prescribed by the supreme court’s opinions in Olson and subsequent cases. Fladwood also contends, in part, that official immunity does not apply because the challenged governmental conduct did not require split-second decisionmaking. Fladwood’s contention is contrary to the purpose of official immunity, which is “to protect public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair effective performance of their duties.” Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 655 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted). This purpose may be served in cases that do not involve split-second decisionmaking. Indeed, both the supreme court and this court have applied the doctrine of official immunity in cases in which the challenged governmental conduct did not involve split-second decisionmaking. See, e.g., Sletten, 675 N.W.2d at 300-08 (maintenance and regulation of compost site that allegedly contaminated groundwater); Olson, 509 N.W.2d at 371-72 (formulation of case plan for child in need of protection); Semler v. Klang, 743 N.W.2d 273, 277-79 (Minn. App. 2007) (notification of presence of sex offender), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 2008); Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863-66 (Minn. App. 2004) (abatement of “garbage house”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004); Huttner v. State, 637 N.W.2d 278, 284-86 (Minn. App. 2001) (monitoring of compliance with treatment plan to control mental illness), review denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 2001). I would not alter the analysis prescribed by Olson and subsequent opinions on the ground that Teske’s conduct did not require splitsecond decisionmaking. In sum, I would affirm the well-reasoned decision of the district court.


In examining the distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts in the application of official immunity, the district court relied heavily on what it calls “the snowplow and road grader cases.” See Schroeder, 708 N.W.2d 497; In re Alexandria Accident of Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. June 26, 1997). Those cases involved discretionary immunity at both the policy making level by the road authority and the operational level by employees. See Schroeder, 708 N.W.2d at 505-08; Alexandria Accident, 561 N.W.2d at 545, 547. At the operational level, the landscape was very dynamic for the employees, involving quickly changing road, weather, or traffic conditions. See Schroeder, 708 N.W.2d at 506; Alexandria Accident, 561 N.W.2d at 549. The present case involves a more static situation, with fixed and designated facts. The tree, like the house in Williamson, was just standing there. See 310 Minn. at 60, 245 N.W.2d at 243. There was sufficient time to develop a plan and take the necessary steps to make sure that there was no damage to other property in the area or injury to any person in the vicinity. Thus, we conclude that Williamson is the more analogous case for purposes of our official immunity analysis.

TO: The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota: Respondents Delmer V. Fladwood and Roxanne Fladwood respectfully request this Court deny the Petitioner’s request for review of the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. At the outset, Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred by identifying the wrong conduct to be analyzed. Petitioner never explains, however, how the criteria enumerated under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 117 for discretionary review are implicated by the alleged error. This case merely involves cutting down a tree. Whether the Court’s focus is on the act of cutting down the tree or on the particulars of how Crew Chief Teske chose to take the tree down matters not. The Court of Appeals’ decision, whether wrong or right, does not implicate the Rule 117 criteria. The question presented by this case is not “an important one upon which the Supreme Court should rule.” It is ludicrous for the City to contend that the decision has “statewide-impact on hundreds of thousands of public employees throughout Minnesota.” The Court of Appeals’ decision affects only a small class of people at best. Likewise, it cannot be said that the Court of Appeals has “so far departed from accepted and usual course of justice as to call for an exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers.” The Court of Appeals decision merely follows the precedents established by this court in Williamson v. Cain, 310 Minn. 59, 245 N.W.2d 242 (1976) (court characterized conduct at issue as the “simple and definite” overall task of “remov[ing] a house”); and Terwilliger v. Hennepin County, 561 N.W.2d 909 (Minn.1997) (decisions made by psychiatrist “no matter how difficult and no matter how much professional judgment is required,” does not implicate the type of discretion protected by official immunity). Moreover, this is not a case where a decision by this Court will help “develop, clarify, or harmonize the law” and is one that calls for the application of a new principle or policy or has possible statewide impact, or is likely to recur unless resolved by this court. Undoubtedly, taking down the tree required some measure of discretion. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals did not depart from the teachings of a long line of Minnesota cases holding that “almost every act involves some measure of discretion, and yet undoubtedly not every act of government is entitled to discretionary immunity.” Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn. 1982); and Williamson, 245 N.W.2d at 244 (noting that “almost any act involves some measure of freedom of choice” but that alone does not entitle an official to immunity from suit). Here, Crew Chief Teske undoubtedly exercised some independent decisionmaking. Such independent decision-making, however, is involved in even the most mundane of tasks conducted by government employees throughout the State of Minnesota each and every day. The Minnesota courts have spoken clearly that simply exercising discretion does not even begin to implicate official immunity. Finally, Respondents note that the Court of Appeals followed the line of Minnesota cases holding that the concept of official immunity should be construed narrowly because it is an exception to the general rule of governmental liability. Cairl, 323 N.W.2d at 23.
CONCLUSION The Court of Appeals decision in this matter is sound. It follows well-established precedent. The case does not break new ground, does not constitute an issue of possible statewide impact, and the issue is not likely to recur. Accordingly, the Petition must be denied. Date: June 28, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

I apologise for introducing the idea of full and proper research to a forum which doesn't appear to have come across it before.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> Of course it is serious.
> No jokes involved, but I'll explain it to you:
> 
> There are many layers of governance in the USA, and any might become involved with that story. Since it was a city government, they are somewhat protected from liability lawsuits, but not completely. OSHA is the primary investigative work-related safety agency, but they typically do not become involved with accidents that do not involve employees. Had OSHA been involved, the liability suit would probably have waited for a determination so as to increase the value of their lawsuit.
> 
> No settlement would have stopped nor interfered with any "investigation" regarding safety rules enforcement. What happened was that the injured parties sued the city to recover their damages in a process that is referred to as civil liability lawsuit. Collectively, the lawyers involved with both sides of the litigation decided a monetary value to settle upon prior to going to court, and that was end of it. Victims got paid, guilty party paid for their damages. Lawyers took a nice cut from everyone involved.


I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The case did make it to court. A decision was handed down in favour of the City. This was appealed. The appeals court reversed the original ruling, finding in favour of the appellant.. The City appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear their appeal.


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> _*O*ccupational_ *S*afety & *H*ealth *A*dministration. That pretty much covers it.
> 
> We likely don't know where that video came from (I don't at any rate). If it was privately owned, it will remain that way.
> 
> As to reports, those will be public only as much as they can be tied to a public agency. If it was any part of a government report, the information can be had with a great deal of patience & money through the use of our Freedom of Information act. Any prrivately owned reports will almost certainly be locked down tight by the legaleze of the settlement agreement.


How about simply looking up the court records of the case?


----------



## crazyhorse666

pdqdl said:


> Yes, and I can prove that it usually works out that way, too. For the most part, on-the-job accidents are handled by the responsible insurance companies or civil litigation, unless it gets the attention of a criminal investigation.
> Why is "learning anything" an intrinsic and necessary requirement for you concerning accidents?
> 
> I had a tree climber die while working for me. DEAD on the job, while working under my employment. He was "life flighted" to a hospital after 3 resuscitation efforts by the paramedics and subsequently reported DOA. I never even got so much as a knock on my office door from any agency. Not even from my Worker's Comp insurance company.
> 
> I'd just as soon not go into the details of all that event here. Search Arborist site for posts by me mentioning Kenny, and you might find it.


It would appear that you can just read the original article to learn about the investigation and the measures that were introduced following it.

ST. PAUL PUTS IN NEW SAFETY MEASURES​St. Paul immediately made changes. Fladwood was injured on a Friday and all forestry workers met the Monday morning that followed “to review and strengthen the standard of securing the work zone for both traffic and pedestrian safety,” according to a 2013 email from St. Paul’s forestry supervisor.

The department stopped using tree debris “as a cushion for protection of paved surfaces” when cutting down large trees, according to the email, though St. Paul Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Clare Cloyd said that’s “still an accepted practice in the industry.”

St. Paul now uses large steel plates to cushion a large tree’s fall, Cloyd said.

After the incident, forestry crews began using a form to document traffic and pedestrian safety in work zones. On high-traffic sites, they now assign at least one worker whose sole job is making sure pedestrians and traffic don’t get too close, Cloyd said.

The city also purchased two-way radios and headphones for crews, for better communication.

The city reviewed what happened in 2013 and determined “no discipline was appropriate or necessary” for employees, Cloyd said.

The article also discusses the court cases, but I consider the actual transcripts to be more reliable.


----------



## Philbert

crazyhorse666 said:


> I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The case did make it to court. A decision was handed down in favour of the City. This was appealed. The appeals court reversed the original ruling, finding in favour of the appellant.. The City appealed to the Supreme Court which refused to hear their appeal.


I like this version, which I can read. 

Thank you for you efforts on this thread. 

Philbert


----------



## Cricket

crazyhorse666 said:


> Is this actually serious? Surely it is some kind of joke that the City, or anyone else for that matter, can pay a settlement which halts any further investigation of the incident. How can anything be learnt from that approach? Any serious accident like that would be fully investigated by WorkSafe, a government body with wide reaching investigative powers, over here. They don't care about any financial settlements, their role is to investigate any serious workplace incident to determine the likely causes and what measures need to be introduced to prevent it happening again. If they find serious negligence by any party, they can recommend criminal charges. You can't buy your way out of a criminal negligence trial.


I often suspect that "learning from that approach" is exactly what they're trying to avoid.


----------



## rabbit box

We have an immunity litigation protection in Beaufort county N.C. Pat fell at the county landfill. The cement pad was uneven and in poor condition. She broke the tibia bone, fibula bone, and several bones in her foot. She had surgery and now has six pins in her foot. No lawyer will take the case. N.C. is one of four states that the county, city , or state cannot be sued. This is what she shared with me. The lawyer in Beaufort county is Herman Gaskins. The second lawyer she contacted was in Pitt county NC.


----------

