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?? :dizzy:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Help Support Arborist Forum:

Old enough to know better.

Addicted to ArboristSite

Addicted to ArboristSite

Addicted to ArboristSite

Tree Freak

Tree Freak

Daddy

Addicted to ArboristSite

ArboristSite Operative

Old enough to know better.

Addicted to ArboristSite

ArboristSite Operative

Addicted to ArboristSite

Tree Freak

ArboristSite Guru

New Member

Addicted to ArboristSite

ArboristSite Operative

Addicted to ArboristSite

Addicted to ArboristSite

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!