A train crash was caused when an ash tree fell from the defendant’s land across the railway line. The company sought damages from the land-owner.
Held: The land-owner’s duty extended no further than the carrying out of periodic informal or preliminary observations/inspections of the tree. She was capable of performing that duty and that she complied with that duty. There was nothing that should have alerted her, or put her on notice, that the Tree was anything other than healthy, or required a closer inspection by an arboriculturalist. The claim in tort against her therefore failed.
The principles suggested by the authorities are: ‘(a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner (Caminer);
(b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden (Lambourn) or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature (Noble). But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him and which he can see with his own eyes (Brown);
(c) A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis (Micklewright and the first instance cases noted in paragraph 66 above);
(d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for fuller inspections by arboriculturalists (Caminer, Quinn). This will usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have revealed a potential problem (Micklewright, Charlesworth and Percy), although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections (Caminer). A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only if there is some form of ‘trigger’ is also in accordance with the published guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above.
(e) The resources available to the householder may have a relevance (Leakey) to the way in which the duty is discharged.’
Coulson J
[2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Caminer v Northern and London Investment Trust Ltd HL 1951
An elm tree, standing on land adjoining a busy London highway, fell, injuring the plaintiffs, who were using the thoroughfare. The House considered the duty of a land owner to inspect trees on his land adjoining the highway.
Held: Lord Normand . .
Cited – Noble v Harrison CA 1926
A tree shed a limb onto a passer-by, causing personal injury. The Court of Appeal reversed the original finding in favour of the claimant because the defect could not have been discovered by inspection. A land-owner may become liable for a naturally . .
Cited – Brown v Harrison CA 1947
Somervell LJ reiterated the relevant test (formulated by the judge at first instance) in these terms: ‘If there is a danger which is apparent, not only to the expert but to the ordinary layman which the ordinary layman can see with his own eyes, if . .
Cited – Micklewright v Surrey County Council CA 28-Jul-2011
A branch overhanging the road, fell off causing a death. His PR claimed damages, but failed in the County Court. The death of an individual killed by a branch falling from a tree overhanging the highway was not attributable to the negligence of the . .
Cited – Lambourn v London Brick Co Ltd 28-Jul-1950
Finnemore J stated that an unreasonable burden must not be placed on the reasonable owner: ‘the standard to be taken should be that of an ordinary landowner and not an expert. It was neither the duty nor the practice of the ordinary prudent . .
Cited – Qinn v Scott QBD 1965
A tree fell across the highway, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The claim succeeded. he decay of the tree (which was owned by the National Trust), was there to be seen and the tree should have been felled. Glyn-Jones J said: ‘The duty of the . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Corker v Wilson 10-Nov-2006
Mayor’s and City of London Court – the defendant was an ordinary landowner who owned a tree by a road. A heavy branch fell onto a passing car. There was a crack at the junction of the stem of the branch, and the claimant’s case was that this should . .
Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Cited – Selwyn-Smith v Gompels 22-Dec-2009
Swindon County Court. A tree fell over from the defendant’s land onto the claimant’s garage.
Held: The claim failed. The law did not require the landowner to engage an expert ‘unless and until reasonable inspection by the standards of that . .
Cited by:
Applied – Witley Parish Council v Cavanagh CA 11-Oct-2018
The claimant bus driver was injured when a tree fell across the road onto his bus. A tree survey had not recorded any defect in the tree, but the report became out of date, and the re-examination was cursory. At the time it ell there was evidence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Negligence
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.526443
