# Tree service looses lawsuit; claims of arborist certification not true.



## pdqdl (May 9, 2008)

One of my competitors was in the news today. They apparently lost a lawsuit over an oak tree that they convinced the homeowner should cut down. From the one picture on the web page, I would have to agree with the homeowner.

Here is the story:

http://www.kctv5.com/news/16192829/detail.html?rss=kan&psp=news


----------



## lxt (May 9, 2008)

Thats a shame!! yeah now he has an Arborist on staff vacationing in florida!! How good will his "word" be...even he were to become a CA, here is a case were he should not be allowed to obtain certification atleast for a certain time frame!!

Just another reason why our industry needs some form of regulation, Old Cartwright if he gets his Cert.....big deal!!! he`s already lied & given the industry a black eye.


LXT..........


----------



## Blakesmaster (May 9, 2008)

I agree that the company shouldn't have lied about it's certification but if the homeowner signed a contract to have the tree removed and then didn't pay...well, seems that's unacceptable as well. What if the guy was a CA and had an error in judgment regarding the tree's health? Would the homeowner still not have to pay him for the work done? Shouldn't the responsibility be on the homeowner to get a second opinion before hiring someone? If the tree was really THAT important to me you'd be dern sure I'd get a second opinion before I let someone hack it down. Almost seems like the HO is looking for some free work here.


----------



## Blakesmaster (May 9, 2008)

TreeCo said:


> The homeowner not only should not have to pay for a wrong diagnosis and removal.........but should also be able to recover the value of the tree from the tree company!



I see your point but when I'm bidding a job if the tree is near someone's house and there's a chance of it failing I'll almost always err on the side of removing it as opposed to walking away and having the next storm blow it over onto there house risking the lives of the HO and their family.


----------



## treemandan (May 9, 2008)

I have seen the fine print of some contracts used by many tree service professionals, some certified, some certifiable. It is common to read phrases and paragraphs on the subject of true liabilty. Some exerpts state that whatever advice was given by the writer of the contract was at best a BEST GUESS !
Sometimes I find it to easy to chop one down but not doing so goes against common sense. I leave it up to the client, the rest is just dribble.
Not to say I run around and try to cut down every tree but I don't sleep in the reach that others do if you know what I mean.


----------



## treemandan (May 9, 2008)

TreeCo said:


> The homeowner not only should not have to pay for a wrong diagnosis and removal.........but should also be able to recover the value of the tree from the tree company!



You are without a doubt out of your mind, sir. I knew it, sort of, but now its evident. There are more like you?
Where can I see pictures of this castastrophy?


----------



## tree MDS (May 9, 2008)

*$ 7250 !*

7250 dollars and they did'nt even have to grind the stump...nice try anyways. So thats about 605 bucks an hour. Where do I find these type people. People ask me if sound oak trees are safe all the time, usually because the acorns are bothering them and they are hoping I'll say its not, I dont, I tell them oak is a very safe tree, they usually want it down anyway, sometimes I think its like a game and people are trying to test my integrity-maybe I'm just paranoid but at least I'll be ready.


----------



## ckliff (May 9, 2008)

HO oughta get a free ride on the removal, but since they did not get second opinion, then there should be no extra $ for value.

Who in their right mind would not get second opinion??


----------



## Brush Hog (May 9, 2008)

I also think HO should have gotten a second opinion. Maybe have this guy cut the limb off over neighbors house but get a few more opinions to as why this guy says tree needs to come down. Why didn't they ask to see proof of cert. ? I have had to turn away two jobs because I'm not CA(two more test and that'll change) but could have done them anyway because people never new about being a CA to trim. Nobody even asks to see my insurance cert. or bother to see if it's legit :censored: . I think these people realized they screwed up by not getting another opinion but won because this guy lied about being a CA.


----------



## pdqdl (May 9, 2008)

TreeCo said:


> The homeowner not only should not have to pay for a wrong diagnosis and removal.........but should also be able to recover the value of the tree from the tree company!



I'm with TreeCo on this one. Cartwright Tree is becoming a big player in the local tree service market. They are doing it by slick advertising, and apparently some pretty slick salesmanship.

My best climber went to school with the owner, and has a good bit of inside information about his personal integrity and past (colorful) background. Without spreading any hearsay stories that I cannot prove, I am inclined to think that they took the homeowner to the cleaner.

It's like this guys: the judge of the lawsuit said they were liable. The facts are that they materially misrepresented their qualifications, and used those lies and their advertised image to scam a property owner.

treemandan & ckliff: do you really think that lying to customers is OK? We all know that we are financially liable for innocently driving our vehicles down the road and getting in a wreck that is our fault, whether through incompetant driving or just bad luck. Do you truly believe that a tree company is not liable to their customer/victim if they lie about the facts?


----------



## Blakesmaster (May 9, 2008)

pdqdl said:


> I'm with TreeCo on this one. Cartwright Tree is becoming a big player in the local tree service market. They are doing it by slick advertising, and apparently some pretty slick salesmanship.
> 
> My best climber went to school with the owner, and has a good bit of inside information about his personal integrity and past (colorful) background. Without spreading any hearsay stories that I cannot prove, I am inclined to think that they took the homeowner to the cleaner.
> 
> ...



I think everyone here is more than appalled at the way this individual misrepresented his certification. That is unacceptable and probably what lost the case for him. I just wonder if he hadn't lied about being a CA and simply misdiagnosed a healthy tree would the outcome have been different. I think it should be on the homeowner to get a second opinion on any tree in question.


----------



## osb_mail (May 9, 2008)

I think if the tree had so much worth to the homeowner they would have got second opinion .Sounds like they did not want to pay the bill . Tree care companies and homeowner must remember when it comes down to it is always homeowner decision hopefully with a guided educated company there to answer questions maybe even 2 or 3 companies opinions but these people probably did not want to pay for the consolations. But hey cartright lied so he should pay .


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (May 9, 2008)

> Asked whether it was a healthy tree, Cartwright said, "You know what, some say it was. Some say it wasn't."




That's a shyster's line if I ever heard one.


----------



## treemandan (May 9, 2008)

pdqdl said:


> I'm with TreeCo on this one. Cartwright Tree is becoming a big player in the local tree service market. They are doing it by slick advertising, and apparently some pretty slick salesmanship.
> 
> My best climber went to school with the owner, and has a good bit of inside information about his personal integrity and past (colorful) background. Without spreading any hearsay stories that I cannot prove, I am inclined to think that they took the homeowner to the cleaner.
> 
> ...



Oh I guess I give lots of room for specific judgement on this particular case( of course I only read the small summary in the paper). Who knows the level of misrepresention ( I guess the guy who said he did knows) and how fine a line was split.
All this crying about clients always shopping around and now this. I always wonder.
It can be really hard for a unassuming citizen to understand what tree guys tell them and of course it is often misconstrued by them as they tell the judge who feel sorry for them. I don't take advantage, I could, but never have.


----------



## masiman (May 9, 2008)

Blakesmaster said:


> I think everyone here is more than appalled at the way this individual misrepresented his certification. That is unacceptable and probably what lost the case for him. I just wonder if he hadn't lied about being a CA and simply misdiagnosed a healthy tree would the outcome have been different. I think it should be on the homeowner to get a second opinion on any tree in question.



Ya, it sounds like he got caught up in his own lies. If he had the cert then it could have been chalked up to a misdiagnosis. This line of reasoning sounds very similar to medical malpractice. If a doctor does the same to a patient, what is their liability? Interesting parallels and perceptions.


----------



## Kalmstead (May 9, 2008)

The misrepresentation of certification is unacceptable. Ideally, when time allows, on specimen trees, we perform and charge for a proper Hazard Tree Evaluation which may include a Resistograph testing. This expertise sets you apart from competitors.


----------



## Slvrmple72 (May 9, 2008)

Kalmstead, What does the resistograph test tell you? The extent of decay within the tree?


----------



## TreeBot (May 9, 2008)

I worked for that clown for 1.4 days until I was ordered to top a 20" pecan that had made it through the devastating Springfield, Mo. storm with the loss of only a few small branches.

It was the same kind of situation: the sales guy convinced the homeowner that the tree was hazardous. Before I had even come down from pruning the tree, one of Cartwright's guys, who had obviously just been selling something to the homeowner, came over and told me the customer "wants it topped right in there somewhere" (half to two thirds up the trunk-10" dia stubs). I told him no way was I going to do that and came down. Then, as I was packing up my rope and talking about how topping was butchery, Cartwright's climber/sales guy actually physically blocked me from view of the customer and tried to convince me that "we just do what the customer wants", when it was obvious that he had just scared the old man into ruining his fine specimen of a tree. 

The thing was that the tree was only about 50-60' tall and 100 feet from the house so even if topping was a good cure for hazardous trees this one wasn't endangering anything except a gravel driveway.

I should have just driven off when I saw all the hat racks in the front yard, but those were silver maples that I assumed had been massacred by the storm. It is one thing to cut back shredded stubs on those things but for him to destroy a pecan that had just survived that bad of a storm with only a couple of scratches, just for a few dollars -that really pissed me off.


----------



## lxt (May 9, 2008)

Theres alot of guys in my area using the title "qualified Arborists" their not Certified!! just putting a spin on a line & using the Arborist title!!

The companies claiming this "qualified" BS are the ones doing the topping & other improper tree care work!!


LXT..............


----------



## Toddppm (May 9, 2008)

Are you guys really suprised by this ? Or just suprised that the customer won the case? 

The guy was selling some BS and found an easy mark, fear mongering.

Happens here everyday all day long. Doesn't suprise me a bit. I've been giving estimates and heard the competitions salesman giving their spiel while I'm there..totally selling BS lies.

I do alot of estimates and some people just get these stupid ideas in their heads and can't be convinced by common sense, these are the type of guys that take advantage of it and feed their fears. I prefer to just try to explain a little and if it doesn't work, I'm out of there.


----------



## ClimbinArbor (May 9, 2008)

I told yall saw monkeys were stupid!!! :monkey: 


these guys are the worst. that looked like one helluvan oak.


----------



## Bermie (May 9, 2008)

Misrepresentation granted, but what happened to 'buyer beware' to some extent? But bully tactics are never acceptable.

I tell you, if I ever have a doubt about my diagnosis I get onto the phone to my competition, he goes and has a look, we confer and then do what's best for the tree. Sometimes I do the work and sometimes he does, sometimes we share it. We share a finder's fee and all is good. I think I am very lucky in this respect!


----------



## treeseer (May 9, 2008)

Woulda been nice to know what the exact judgment was. I agree with TreeCo; Cartwright sounds liable for lawyer fees and the replacement of the tree.

Ye ssecond opinions are smart to get, but intimidation sometimes makes people panic.

Carpenter ants never destroyed any tree anywhere; that was a whopper of a LIE.


----------



## pdqdl (May 9, 2008)

*Caveat emptor*



Bermie said:


> Misrepresentation granted, but what happened to 'buyer beware' to some extent? But bully tactics are never acceptable.
> 
> ...



From Wikipedia:

_*Caveat emptor* is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". Generally caveat emptor is the property law doctrine that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing._

It is also good advice, because it is well known that there are unscrupulous salesmen. Just because the buyer should be wary, that does not give the seller the right to be a cheat.

There is also *Caveat venditor*_
Caveat venditor is Latin for "let the seller beware". It is a counter to caveat emptor, and suggests that sellers too can be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product, and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality._

So it would seem that our legal system has a cool sounding latin phrase that means if you screw your customer, it can come back on you. We just don't hear about that as much. Think about that next time you plan to get over on somebody.

*For all you guys that think the customer should not be entitled to damages because they did not get a second opinion*: that kind of thinking shows that you believe it is ok to take advantage of the gullible. That it is ok to gouge people out of their money just because they aren't smart enough to see through your sales pitch. 

That is the same kind of reasoning that makes rape ok because it was a pretty girl in a short dress. Or stealing ok if somebody left their property unprotected. Or anything else you can do wrong because of the weakness of the victim.

I have never seen a $7000 oak tree removal in Kansas City, and I know it was doubly overpriced for this area even if it was dangerous. I am sure that the homeowner got really pissed when they were watching healthy wood come down out of the tree, and realized they had been screwed.

As you can tell, I am a bit torqued about some of your responses. I am ashamed to be associated with anybody that thinks it's ok to cheat people just because they are too naive/gullible/dumb/unwary to get a second opinion. 

Don't flame me about this either. It will fall on deaf ears.


----------



## mckeetree (May 9, 2008)

treeseer said:


> Woulda been nice to know what the exact judgment was. I agree with TreeCo; Cartwright sounds liable for lawyer fees and the replacement of the tree.
> 
> Ye ssecond opinions are smart to get, but intimidation sometimes makes people panic.
> 
> Carpenter ants never destroyed any tree anywhere; that was a whopper of a LIE.



Wise words.


----------



## capetrees (May 9, 2008)

I would have had to have been REALLY convnced by a pro that the tree was dying to take that big of a tree down. Something like that is irreplacable. I always ask my clients that want a healthy tree removed if they are absolutely sure. I always remind them its only minutes to down it but years to grow it. I always give the tree the benifit of the doubt, even if dieased or damaged. They can bounce back fairly well as I have seen over the years. If I do give the tree the beifit of the doubt, I always tell the owners I'll be back two months later to follow up. If it worsens, it comes down. This guy Cartwright is a clown. He's just a clenup guy that has a lot of notes in equipment doing a clean up job nobody else wants. Happens in every aspect of labor. Hack arborists, landscapers, carpenters, pavers, painters. Happens all the time. Makes the legit guys look bad. Hopefully, word of mouth will travel fast.


----------



## ckliff (May 9, 2008)

*ok ok ok, ya got me, ur right already!*



pdqdl said:


> *For all you guys that think the customer should not be entitled to damages because they did not get a second opinion*: that kind of thinking shows that you believe it is ok to take advantage of the gullible. That it is ok to gouge people out of their money just because they aren't smart enough to see through your sales pitch.
> 
> That is the same kind of reasoning that makes rape ok because it was a pretty girl in a short dress. Or stealing ok if somebody left their property unprotected. Or anything else you can do wrong because of the weakness of the victim.
> 
> ...



*RELAX!* I'm not gonna flame anybody! I still think the HO shoulda had a second opinion, but you are right, that does not excuse a LIE. Cartwright oughta be liable for damages.

$7000 oak removal in KC? Never heard of it either. I'm in Hutch and I was amazed at that price.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 9, 2008)

I feel he is guilty of lying but that the homeowner set him up or possibly
a competitor! If he was ca the outcome would most likely have been very
different! While I don't condone shady biz practices I feel the biz is already
too regulated IE insurance schemes,advertisement, etc. I don't care if
you are a certified diploma carrying biologist you can be wrong and if
you are, do you want some stinking lawyer suing your insurance for a
hackbury you removed? If in good faith you make the best decision
and it turns out wrong, it would be ludicrous to be sued. I do believe
if you misrepresent or use your cert to seek only financial gain with
disregard for the customer that you deserve justice. I have a question
now,say you go the other way recommend mulching critical root zone,
deadwooding and a good plant health care; what happens when the
tree fails and goes through a roof killing the kids? I have often wandered
this and sometimes keeps me up at night! It is a dern shame that all people
want to do today is take an easy way out by suing someone performing work!



Oh and in no way am I condoning the service in question
I have never seen a 7000 tree yet and feel that is way
out of line with sound biz practice,as well lying can't stand a liar.


----------



## alanarbor (May 10, 2008)

treeseer said:


> Carpenter ants never destroyed any tree anywhere; that was a whopper of a LIE.



I sure that played into him being held liable. 

I have seen a lot of sound trees removed over the failure of one compromised limb. People panic, and the "Arborist" just stokes that fear, rather than helping someone in need to make an informed and rational decison.

For what it's worth I hear that carpenter ant BS at least a couple times a month.


----------



## treeseer (May 10, 2008)

alanarbor said:


> For what it's worth I hear that carpenter ant BS at least a couple times a month.


Me too. That just plays into people's insectophoia.

"I have a question
now,say you go the other way recommend mulching critical root zone,
deadwooding and a good plant health care; what happens when the
tree fails and goes through a roof killing the kids? "

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


----------



## ropensaddle (May 10, 2008)

Seer I would love to do all that, I have yet to see those clients
I am normally called to go out to a tree that has been severely
topped and has all sorts of issues. The customer just wants the
tree cut at this point or does not wish to pay for ongoing care.
Very few I have seen would care enough to have a soil analysis
performed, let alone resistograph testing which I would farm out
to someone that has one. I have referred several customers to ca
then they tell them to have me cut the tree as it is already in a 
downward spiral! I care about trees very much but not more than
my customer and some times it is just wrong tree, wrong site.
As far as risk assessment I live in an area that has had like 
a hundred tornado's and it is hard to tell a customer that 110
foot black gum ten foot from your house is safe! What I usually
tell them if its a tornado your house will be gone anyway but
that does not always help to address their fears! Anyway
this is good to talk about and I try to stay in the lines of
accepted practices and feel if you are sued then so should
ANSI or ISA!


----------



## pdqdl (May 11, 2008)

ckliff said:


> *RELAX!* I'm not gonna flame anybody! I still think the HO shoulda had a second opinion, but you are right, that does not excuse a LIE. Cartwright oughta be liable for damages.
> 
> $7000 oak removal in KC? Never heard of it either. I'm in Hutch and I was amazed at that price.



Ok, I'll give you that. 

Agree to pay $7k for a tree removal beside a house, and you know they had to have SUCKER printed on their forehead. The fact that he even_ tried_ to pull that off says a lot about the company.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 12, 2008)

pdqdl said:


> Ok, I'll give you that.
> 
> Pay $7k for a tree removal beside a house, and you have to know they had sucker printed on their forehead. The fact that he even_ tried_ to pull that off says a lot about the company.



Agreed absolutely poor ethics 7k would have to be over a glass house
with solid gold etching


----------



## Dadatwins (May 12, 2008)

Scary stuff, I wonder if the ISA will try to seek some penalty against the tree company also, one thing they enforce vigorously is the use of the ISA logos and symbols.


----------



## pdqdl (May 12, 2008)

Dadatwins said:


> Scary stuff, I wonder if the ISA will try to seek some penalty against the tree company also, one thing they enforce vigorously is the use of the ISA logos and symbols.



I'll bet against it. It's one thing to lie about a certification, and another completely different issue when you put it into print. It's pretty easy to win a lawsuit when somebody put a logo into print. Misrepresentation about a certification gets into a "he said, she said" situation, that takes forever in court. Too much ambiguity.


----------



## treeseer (May 12, 2008)

Dadatwins said:


> Scary stuff, I wonder if the ISA will try to seek some penalty against the tree company also, one thing they enforce vigorously is the use of the ISA logos and symbols.


True, so I sent isa cert folks the news story. What they need is anything printed in which certification is erroneously claimed. Nothing in the website I saw says cert. Anyone in KC got a phone book?


----------



## Dadatwins (May 12, 2008)

The truck pictured in the news story says 'certified arborist' but shows no member name or ID number. I think the term 'certified arborist' is a copyrighted ISA term and must be displayed with a name and ID of the person using it.


----------



## treemandan (May 12, 2008)

I just saw the video clip on this ( didn't realize it was there and just read the print). I tell you I think I saw a rather hairy codom with some thick ridge bark sticking out of the union . I can't be sure and if that tree was hit by lightning wouldn't it not have exploded?
I bet ants were rampant on it, just like every one around here. I think the limb just let go which is comon, probably more up there to be concerned about.
As far as the CA thing goes; he has one on staff although from the video he does in fact look like a clown. It's the kind of thing that make so many of us say" If HE can do it so can I", run a business that is.
I cannot count how many jobs I lost due to being not certified and then seeing that hack job done by the suppossed CA. It makes me laugh so hard I cry. It makes me want to call the HO up and ask" Are you happy now?"
One man's hazzard tree is anothers healthy specimen, go ahead and argue but you would be argueing with yourself or just hopping on a bandwagon cause you can't think for yourself like those poor people who had their life ruined by Mr. Cartwright .


----------



## pdqdl (May 12, 2008)

treeseer said:


> ...
> Anyone in KC got a phone book?



Oh yeah. I have several. I'll check.


----------



## BC WetCoast (May 13, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> I feel he is guilty of lying but that the homeowner set him up or possibly
> a competitor! If he was ca the outcome would most likely have been very
> different! While I don't condone shady biz practices I feel the biz is already
> too regulated IE insurance schemes,advertisement, etc. I don't care if
> ...



Anybody can sue you, whether it's justified or not. The question more importantly is whether you can defend the suit. In my opinion, if you identify the indicators you have seen, and define the logic behind your decision, even if your analysis is wrong, then your accountability if minimized. After all, the only way to be 100% certain that a tree doesn't have defects that could make it dangerous would be to do a complete destructive sample. Every field, such as engineering, makes assumptions based on observation, experience and experimentation.


----------



## pdqdl (May 13, 2008)

BC WetCoast said:


> Anybody can sue you, whether it's justified or not. The question more importantly is whether you can defend the suit. In my opinion, if you identify the indicators you have seen, and define the logic behind your decision, even if your analysis is wrong, then your accountability if minimized. After all, the only way to be 100% certain that a tree doesn't have defects that could make it dangerous would be to do a complete destructive sample. Every field, such as engineering, makes assumptions based on observation, experience and experimentation.



There is a big difference between doing a good job of identifying indicators and lying your ash off to get a sale. Playing a game of "cover your ash to avoid loosing in court" won't help much if you are still a lying fraud out to rob the customer.

Clearly, the judge figured they done wrong, and he had all the available facts. 

I don't ever worry about lawsuits. I just do the right thing, tell people the facts that I know, those that I don't know, and I never sell any tree work just to make money. I sell good service and expertise to make money, and sometimes that entitles me to collect for tree work performed.


----------



## ropensaddle (May 13, 2008)

pdqdl said:


> There is a big difference between doing a good job of identifying indicators and lying your ash off to get a sale. Playing a game of "cover your ash to avoid loosing in court" won't help much if you are still a lying fraud out to rob the customer.
> 
> Clearly, the judge figured they done wrong, and he had all the available facts.
> 
> I don't ever worry about lawsuits. I just do the right thing, tell people the facts that I know, those that I don't know, and I never sell any tree work just to make money. I sell good service and expertise to make money, and sometimes that entitles me to collect for tree work performed.



+1 but do wander if one failed if they could hold you liable?
A healthy tree pruned correctly to ansi standards should become
their liability not the tree company? I am sure if one failed it would
probably end up in court and I have thought about it a time or two!


----------



## osb_mail (May 13, 2008)

It seems that the homeowners acted very quickly . Tree that meant so much one minute there getting a bid for removing a limb the next they are O.K. a 7000 dollars removal from a company they found in the yellow book .I bet they wanted to have it cut down anyway they just did not want to pay so they found this shady guy cartwright and wasted his fuel ,labor , and time . I want to meet cartwright sales man must be good to sale someone on 7000 dollar without another opinion if it was were I lived homeowners would have on there 10th bid saying 3 grand sounds a little high to me .I wish they had a video of the actual bid now that would be interesting .I think in the end comes down to shady home owner (or very uneducated) meets shady lying tree service lier loses end of story .


----------



## Dadatwins (May 13, 2008)

osb_mail said:


> It seems that the homeowners acted very quickly . Tree that meant so much one minute there getting a bid for removing a limb the next they are O.K. a 7000 dollars removal from a company they found in the yellow book .I bet they wanted to have it cut down anyway they just did not want to pay so they found this shady guy cartwright and wasted his fuel ,labor , and time . I want to meet cartwright sales man must be good to sale someone on 7000 dollar without another opinion if it was were I lived homeowners would have on there 10th bid saying 3 grand sounds a little high to me .I wish they had a video of the actual bid now that would be interesting .I think in the end comes down to shady home owner (or very uneducated) meets shady lying tree service lier loses end of story .



I don't think the homeowner acted quickly at all, they said that they were going by the opinion of the 'expert' and had the work done. They probably should have recieved a few other opinions but the salesman played into the fears anyone has of insects and a huge tree near the house. I can hear the sales speech, "we are here now, the tree could fall at any time, it could take weeks to get someone else out here ect." Agreed the homeowner was uneducated about the tree but isn't most of the public? Similiar to going to a doctor for a backache, the public puts the trust in the doctor to fix the problem. I am amazed that the company was going to charge them $1200 to remove one limb, so to the homeowner 7k for the whole tree probably was not that much of a stretch. I wonder if any other customers of this tree service have started looking at their bills and had second thoughts about the work.


----------



## smokechase II (May 13, 2008)

*Where is a certified lawyer when you need 'em?*

I don't get it.
Why didn't the neighbor sue for mental stress? (Shotgun both parties.)

This is America, seriously.

*********************

And the SPCA? Society for the *Preservation* of Carpenter Ants? Where were they?

*******************

Real simple, the court ruled correctly.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (May 14, 2008)

Blakesmaster said:


> I agree that the company shouldn't have lied about it's certification but if the homeowner signed a contract to have the tree removed and then didn't pay...well, seems that's unacceptable as well. What if the guy was a CA and had an error in judgment regarding the tree's health? Would the homeowner still not have to pay him for the work done? Shouldn't the responsibility be on the homeowner to get a second opinion before hiring someone? If the tree was really THAT important to me you'd be dern sure I'd get a second opinion before I let someone hack it down. Almost seems like the HO is looking for some free work here.



If I read the article right, they did not pay to have a tree removed.

They paid to have a defective tree removed.

So it seems that the guy did not do what was expected. He removed an apparently healthy tree.


----------



## osb_mail (May 14, 2008)

yeah but some say it was healthy some say it was not :monkey:


----------

