ClimbinArbor
ArboristSite Guru
I told yall saw monkeys were stupid!!! :monkey:
these guys are the worst. that looked like one helluvan oak.
these guys are the worst. that looked like one helluvan oak.
Tree service looses lawsuit; claims of arborist certification not true.
- Thread starter pdqdl
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Bermie
Addicted to ArboristSite
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!
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!
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.
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.
Caveat emptor
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.
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
Wise words.
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. 
ok ok ok, ya got me, ur right already!
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.
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.
Last edited:
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Feel Lucky
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!
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!
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
Agreed absolutely poor ethics 7k would have to be over a glass house
with solid gold etching
Dadatwins
Addicted to ArboristSite
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.
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
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
Tree Freak
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 .
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 .
Last edited:
Oh yeah. I have several. I'll check.
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.
