Tree Service Owner Charged In Death of Employee

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It does sound that way, doesn't it?

I suspect that what is needed is to find another category within OSHA regulations that definitively applies to tree trimming operations; otherwise they will pick what fits best.

I am sure that some specialist lawyer could find thousands of court rulings on where the arboriculture industry fits in.
 
There definitely should be some standard that requires the workers to be out of the drop zone when a tree is being pulled with a rope...
No exciuse for that .. get a longer rope, get a pulley and sling to redirect. Hammer in a ground anchor in front of the fence.. whatever it takes!!..

Pull and run is not an acceptable option...

An old aquaintance stopped by my house and we got to talking trees... he told me a story about pulling a tree over with a dodge 150 P/U truck...

Said it was a big old backleaner over his father in law's house.. he went up and set a line, then notched it at about 20'... then got into his truck and backed up to pull the tree over. He was too tight to a fence to clear the tree, so once it started coming over, he put it in first and gunned it to clear the DZ... Not sure I believe him, and wasn't in the mood to lecture, so I just smiled and told him how great he was..
 
Glad we don't let the facts get involved :dizzy: Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent

Pfft....

Fact: Employee was standing in the fall zone of the tree when the tree was cut.

Fact: He died as a result of the tree falling on him.

So how is it that we don't have enough facts to know if anyone was negligent?
 
Pfft....

Fact: Employee was standing in the fall zone of the tree when the tree was cut.

Fact: He died as a result of the tree falling on him.

So how is it that we don't have enough facts to know if anyone was negligent?


Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said.
Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.
 
Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said.
Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.

The article EdenT links states 3 men were holding the rope and pulling the tree. We know for a fact that he was holding a rope, and that it was too damn short. Duh. If it was not too short, the tree would have been incapable of reaching him without breaking apart and flying. I suppose there's always the possibility he was holding the middle of a long rope, standing in the middle of the drop zone, but I wouldn't put much money on that. And if that happened, it was effectively a short rope.

Whether or not it was the second day on the job nothing to do with whether or not someone was negligent. You don't get to ignore the rules because someone is new. Generally, everyone on site is extra careful with a noob onsite.
Your original statement was "Don't think anyone on here knows what they are enough to know if anyone (tree company or man killed) was negligent."

It's plainly obvious that negligence was part of this man's death. Who's? His own? The foreman on the site? The owner of the company? Well, we don't have the facts to determine who's negligence it was. But we easily have the facts to determine that someone was.
 
Last edited:
Guys on here saying the owner should be thrown in jail, sued for everything, and etc...
A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
A guy on here (the internet) said the second day on the job. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not
All these could be false or all could be true. No one here knows the facts yet, only what has been said in the news report (very little) and what guys on here has said.
Owner at fault, I don't know one way or another.

Fact, the crew pulled the rope and then ran! How can the rope be long enough? It only takes 150' rope fixed 2/3 the way up the tree to keep them clear of the drop zone. - The rope is too short and that's a fact.

Fact, it was his second day on the job. Possibly disputable, the article in the Eagle Tribune stated 'LaVigueur had worked for the company for just a short time, according to Briggs.' He was an inexperienced tree worker and that's a fact.

The point of this discussion is two things. One it allows professional tree workers to get some piece of mind by analyzing the circumstances and ensuring the same thing does not happen on one of their work sites. The second is that by combing through the details there is a chance that one of us might go - 'hey I do that, maybe I can improve my operations.'

To slip into denial attitude of simply saying - 'we can never know the facts' is to bury ones head in the sand and makes this poor kids death completely meaningless. If anyone modifies there work practices to make them safer as a result of this then at least he may have saved another persons life.

Don't forget that what is said on here has no bearing whatsoever on the case. It is simply our way of learning what we can from, and consoling ourselves over this tragic accident.
 
Said others said second day on job not second job of the day. Was saying we don't know who was negligent, faller/man killed/supervisor/owner. I for one don't know who or what the facts were.
Didn't mean to imply no one was at fault as someone was.
Have a good day and out
 
A guy on here (the internet) said the pull rope was to short. Fact, I don't know maybe maybe not

I have zero pro experience, but it seems clear enough that if the rope was long enough and the guy was holding onto the end of it, he'd have to be strong enough to drag it off the stump to make it fall on him. If he wasn't holding onto the end of it, then the faller had no business starting to cut until the groundie was moved to the end of the rope. The faller should be the only one standing in the fall zone when the cutting starts, period.
If some bozo wanders into the fall zone while you're making the backcut, then maybe that isn't your fault as a faller.
 
"“(He) required employees to stand in front of trees and stay there until the trees started to fall,”



After reading the above sentence I knew we were not getting the straight story.

That's because the sentence you quoted is written in the language of Persecutorese, spoken only by the walking douche nozzles known as Persecuting Attorneys.
 
Having been the subject of a newspaper story written to shed a poor light on me and friend, I can tell you that not everything presented as fact in a newspaper is to be trusted. I was on the airport board at the time, the owner of the paper didn't get his facts straight and it caused a lot of hard feelings with me and the airport manager, ( the other victim of the article ) along with most the the other members of the board on one side and the city attorney on the other. Found out years later the lawyer had a vested interest in a competing airport in the county. Never was able to get the paper to print the retraction.

About all I am sure about in this case is that a young person was killed. He might have been involved with the removal of the tree and might have been actually hit by the falling tree trunk, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

I have been present for a few airplane crashes, the newspaper reports often had so many 'facts' screwed up that it didn't read even close to what I actually saw. The problem is so few reporters actually know anything about airplanes. I suspect that about the same number actually know anything about tree work.
VA
 
I am both impressed with how many posters are outraged at this incident and dumbfounded that there is ANY support for the company involved.

This guy was at work. Who is responsible for ensuring the worksite is as safe as possible. The employer. Was is at safe as possible? NO

Either the rope was too short (failure to provide proper equipment) or the groundcrew were holding the middle of a long rope (failure to provide adequate training or supervision) either way the groundcrew were in the fell zone (failure to provide adequate training or supervision).

The FACT is, that due to either a lack of training, provision of appropriate equipment, or appropriate supervision, a young man is dead. Nothing we say here can bring him back. The only good thing I see coming out of this thread is my (and I hope your) redoubled determination to NEVER let this happen on my watch.

Stay safe people.
 
Please don't confuse our criticism of the government's response or accuracy in reporting as support for the employer. They are separate issues.

Not many employers can tell you what it is like to have an on-the-job fatality. I can.

Not every fatality can be prevented with proper training. In the case of my own experience, we had a very skilled climber die from errors on his third day on the job. Not a case of improper training, or lack of safety controls by the employer. Just plain old "fatal error". Had OSHA come to our facility to write as many tickets as they could, I am sure that it would have sounded a lot like this story.

I am inclined to think you are right about this fatality: whoever told a groundman to pull a tree over with a short rope should be hung out to dry.
 
Here are some excerprs from the eye whitness accounts


KINGSTON - A Circuit Drive resident working for a local tree service was killed yesterday when he was struck by a falling pine tree.

Jon LaVigueur was cutting an 82-foot tree on 15th Street for Buzzell Tree Service of East Kingston when the pine fell on him about 12:40 p.m., police said.

This paragraph says the victim was cutting the tree. Does that me was running the saw? We don't really know!

Paula Campbell, who owns the home at 1 15th St. where LaVigueur and four other employees were working, said the men had tied a rope to the top of the tree. After one worker used a chain saw to make a cut in the trunk, the other men began pulling the rope.

Again, we don't really know who was running the saw, and who was pulling on the rope! My past experiences have shown innocent bystanders to be very poor whitnesses.


When the tree started to fall, they ran.

"He should have gone right or left," Campbell said, "but he tried to outrun the tree."

LaVigueur was slowed when his feet became entangled in weeds and bushes, causing the top of the tree to hit him in the back, she said.

Neighbor Joe Mailhot of 2 15th St. witnessed the accident. He said the impact caused LaVigueur to be thrown.

Not sure how getting hit from above in the back would cause one to be thrown. Did both of these innocent bystanders see the same thing?

Where does it say the victim was pulling on the rope? Someone posted a comment about him pulling on the rope, but was that an actual fact ? If the victim was the one with the saw, then the rope could have been plenty long, but the tree didn't fall as expected.
I don't know what really happened here either, but I don't think we should be hanging the owner on hearsay or possible misquotes. If the newspaper account is close to accurate, then I think the owner is getting off pretty easy with "negligent homocide".

If the victim was the one running the saw, we don't know if he was experienced enough for the task or not. He may have been running a saw since he was 10 years old, knew how to properly notch a tree, and just happened to get very unlucky on this cut. As I keep saying, we don't know the real facts here.

I used to work for a tree company that never handed us groundies any PPE. I didn't start wearing a helmut until I started climbing, and that was because of things I learned here on AS while trying to learn as much as possible about climbing. Nobody wore chaps or ear protection for running chainsaws, just muffs around the chipper. They kept the saws in good shape, taught me to use the brake when moving to a new position or starting the saw. Kept the ropes and rigging gear in good shape as well, but just didn't push PPE. They were careful in how they rigged wood from a tree and tried not to tear up the yards on jobsites. I used to think it was a fair place to work.
Today, I have my own company. I hand every new guy a helmut and safety glasses and tell them they can expect to be fired if I see a bare head under a work tree. I recently ( last fall ) changed to wearing chainsaw pants while climbing. Nobody is allowed to even startup a saw until I personally train them or check them out. Chaps on for even one saw cut. I have a hard time keeping groundies because they think I'm too hard to work for. All I can say is, they aren't limping away and they have all their fingers and toes.

My point here is that even with all I'm trying to do to keep my employees safe, I don't meet the OSHA Logging standards. I would hate to have an accident and end up in prison because not everybody working for me was certified and current in First Aid and CPR.

VA
 
Last edited:
This paragraph says the victim was cutting the tree. Does that me was running the saw? We don't really know!

Yeah, I always let inexperienced people fell 82' pine trees.

Again, we don't really know who was running the saw, and who was pulling on the rope! My past experiences have shown innocent bystanders to be very poor whitnesses.

No we can ignore the context and deny the sky is blu while we're at it. Bystanders, what about ufologists?

Not sure how getting hit from above in the back would cause one to be thrown. Did both of these innocent bystanders see the same thing?

I can tell you from personal experience that when you get hit by a branch, you fly. The best way to describe it is as though God leaned down out of a cloud and flicked me.

Where does it say the victim was pulling on the rope? Someone posted a comment about him pulling on the rope, but was that an actual fact ?

Yeah he cut the tree with a chainsaw until it started to fall and then managed to run 80' in the same direction the tree was falling before being hit. Heck I might make that my SOP for felling ops.

I don't know what really happened here either, but I don't think we should be hanging the owner on hearsay or possible misquotes. If the newspaper account is close to accurate, then I think the owner is getting off pretty easy with "negligent homocide".

So you think we should wait until a jury with absolutely no knowledge of tree removal operations decides for us?

Today, I have my own company. I hand every new guy a helmut and safety glasses and tell them they can expect to be fired if I see a bare head under a work tree. I recently ( last fall ) changed to wearing chainsaw pants while climbing. Nobody is allowed to even startup a saw until I personally train them or check them out. Chaps on for even one saw cut. I have a hard time keeping groundies because they think I'm too hard to work for. All I can say is, they aren't limping away and they have all their fingers and toes.

Do you provide hearing protection or is that on the helmet? Do you have minimum standards of dress such as steel cap boots, a hat for when your not wearing a helmet. I have my own rules which say no shorts, painful in summer but then so are lots of incidental cuts and scratches on your legs.


My point here is that even with all I'm trying to do to keep my employees safe, I don't meet the OSHA Logging standards. I would hate to have an accident and end up in prison because not everybody working for me was certified and current in First Aid and CPR.

I am not sure whether not having a trained first aider is against regs, but it is foolish. What (other) OSHA standards do you think you don't meet?
 
Last edited:
The OSHA logging standard requires EVERY employee to have current First Aid/CPR. No exceptions. Do you meet that standard ?
 
The OSHA logging standard requires EVERY employee to have current First Aid/CPR. No exceptions. Do you meet that standard ?

No! Only our full time employees are trained in first aid. When we get casuals we get what we get. Mind you if we have a 'good' casual, they will usually be asked to work again and having First Aid is considered a good attribute.

I think that the tree service owner being charged is being persectued because his company displays a complete lack of safety awareness. In this accident it is a series of events and choices that led to the young mans death.

You have already made a systematic attempt to increase the safety of your workers. You have displayed the intent to keep your people safe. This guy didn't. :cheers:
 
VA my business recently survived a wall-to-wall Worksafe (OSHA) check and came out with a half dozen minor changes to be made. It isnt hard to comply and the fact that you already take a strong stance on safety is to your credit. Coming up to standard is a small step from where you seem to be at the moment.

As to where the victim was and what he was doing. The eyewitness quoted was the owner of the house where the work was taking place. What she describes is in line with the logic of how such an accident could occur.

LaVigueur was slowed when his feet became entangled in weeds and bushes, causing the top of the tree to hit him in the back, she said.

He was struck by the top of the tree not the trunk so yes he was hauling on the rope. The length of the rope is irrelevant as for whatever reason he and his co-workers were INSIDE the fell zone. Regardless of any other bad practises the business may use or endorse this alone warrants the full force of the law.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top