Of the over 20 or so definitions of risk that exist by far the simplest is; the possibility of losing something of value. In terms of managing risk for health and safety, risk is defined as the likely consequence of a hazard, combined with the likelihood or probability of that hazard occurring. In other words, risk involves the potential of something harmful happening to something of value. So why is risk so complicated?

Value, for starters, has several meanings, it can be applied to different things, in different ways and different people may apply different values to the same things. So, to determine the extent of risk based on the value of the thing alone is not correct. Harm can still happen to something that has no value.

To determine the extent of risk based on the amount of harm (or consequences) is also not correct. It would be fair to say that death and/or complete obliteration could be viewed as harmful, but if the cause of that harm is never going to occur, then there is no risk.

So to determine risk we need to consider two components;
i.  the potential loss (the value of the thing), and
ii. the probability that the loss will occur (will harm happening to the thing?)

For harm to occur to the thing, the thing and the event that causes the harm need to coincide. Determining if that can actually happen is where risk gets really complicated – enter the domain of the risk manager and the concept of ‘perceived risk’.

By definition, to perceive something is to come to an opinion or have a belief about something. Perceived risk, therefore is a belief or opinion that an event may happen and when it happens it will cause harm to a thing. What we can take from this, is that risk management is personal; risk management involves the risk manager’s opinion… their opinion on the value of the thing, their belief of a harm event occurring, their perception that the event and harm will coincide and… their belief of what will happen if they make a bad management decision – it is a risky business being a risk manager after all.

When it comes to risk assessing trees, most arborists focus on the tree and most risk managers focus on the thing of value. If the arborist values the tree more than the thing that the manager fears will be harmed, then the risk assessment is off to a bad start. If the arborist and manager have a different belief or opinion about the likelihood of the event happening (i.e. a tree or tree part failing) then the risk assessment doesn’t get much better. Communicating risk at that point becomes less about the tree and more about managing or at least understanding the beliefs and opinions of others.

So where do you start? Consider starting with where value truly lies. As far as I can tell, most risk managers, tree owners and/or clients believe that they are liable for all and any harm (or damage) caused by their trees. And, at the risk of generalising… most risk managers, tree owners and/or clients don’t understand the law in relation to liable.

Liability the state of being legally responsible for something. I general terms there is ‘Liability’ and ‘Strict Liability’. Most people fear and think Strict Liability where in reality, or strictly speaking… they are most likely in a liability situation.

Strict Liability is liability which does not depend on actual negligence or finding fault. In Strict Liability you are in full control, therefore, you are responsible for any harm or damage, end of the story. But if you are not in full control (i.e. if you manage a naturally grown tree exposed to the full force of the weather) and a harm event happens, then there is a reasonable chance that it may not be your fault.

The key word there is ‘reasonable’. There is a reasonable chance that it is not your fault if you are paying reasonable care and attention and you are taking reasonable steps to manage the risk. If you are not, it could be said that you are negligent. Negligence is defined as the lack of reasonable care and attention, a breach of a duty of care which results in damage. So if a risk manager, tree owner and/or client gets a suitably qualified arborist in to assess their tree(s) then they are taking steps to manage their duty of care. Depending on what is said and/or what is done with that information, the tree manager, tree owner and/or client may not be responsible for any harm or damage caused even if a tree or tree part fails.

To manage my risk I will point out that I’m not a lawyer, and you cannot and should not think that you have adequately managed your duty of care by taking legal advice from an arborist.

So why is Risk so complicated? The answer to that is; it is not – but managing risk can be. As an arborist, your job is to assess the risk the tree or tree part poses on a given thing. By getting a suitably qualified arborist in to assess their tree(s) the risk manager, tree owner and/or client is taking steps to manage their duty of care – during your time with them, try and work out what they actually care about; is it the thing of value or is it their liability? I don’t think you will be surprised by their answer.