Tree Kills Camper!

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Sad news R.I.P.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/14/camper-2 ... t-7838964/
Mechanics and rotten tree................Hammock tent, this report might not mention the type of tent.

[Mick F]

When I first heard this on the news yesterday, I immediately thought that the campsite owners were to blame by not looking after their trees.

However, reading about it on BBC News website, the poor chap wasn't camped in the designated camping area.

A spokesperson for Cornwall Council, which owns the park, said: "Our thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of the young man who has sadly lost his life in this tragic incident which happened outside of the designated camping area at Tehidy Country Park.

Also:
......... were staying in a hammock tent that was hanging 9ft (2.7m) high between three trees

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-45180873

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I think that the land was council owned, so no doubt that there will be tree surgeons there soon.
From the film on spotlight sw and pics you can see that the tree was rotten by the roots that failed.
Also a hammock tent by nature of the mechanics exerts colossal forces on the points where it is tethered.
If the tree was not rotten (that's my observation, possible shallow roots too) then it may never of happened.

I avoid woods and trees where ever possible camping, damp, dark, cold, and obvious risk of a tree falling on you (this case is different from most involving trees) from weather / lightning etc, also open fires which are fashionable of those who like to bivvy in woods.

I wonder if there is a safety warning with the tent?

[reohn2]

You don't get much more unlucky than that,I'll bet the boy and his wife are in a bad state after such a traumatic incident.Very sad indeed.

[Ben@Forest]

When I first heard this on the news yesterday, I immediately thought that the campsite owners were to blame by not looking after their trees.

Any tree owner has a duty of care both in civil and criminal law to take reasonable management measures to avoid foreseeable injury or harm. Duty holders have to consider the risks posed by their trees and manage those risks in a reasonable and proportionate way. There is a well-established case law upholding the principle that the standard of the duty of care varies according to the resources available to the duty holder, i.e. a large land owner such as an estate or a highway authority would be expected to apply a higher standard of management than smaller land owners - but the law still applies to the owners of trees in back gardens and so on.

However the crux is in 'foreseeable'. Someone with reasonable skills could inspect a tree, see no safety problems or clues (such as the fruiting bodies of a strength-rotting fungi) and pass it only for that tree to fall over a week later. And even if a tree does have a hollow or rotting interior it does not necessarily make it dangerous - think of the strength of a hollow tube. So despite the best efforts of tree surveyors they cannot be right 100% of the time. But as any former boy scout knows - don't camp under trees.

[[XAP]Bob]

And I'm not sure that the lateral forces of a hammock tent at 9ft elevation could be considered 'reasonably foreseeable' in an area which is not a camping area... Especially given that we don't have the wilds access as in Scotland.

Bad choice of tree, very unfortunate consequences...

Should the thread not be titled "Camper kills tree, dies in process"?