Tree fell on fence

[Bignor Farmer]

We had a tree branch fall off into the road, local council got called out, first thing we knew was when I heard the little bits being shredded.

He told me the council could send a bill, when i said had been checked xxxxx tree services, he said 'was it Simon' when I said 'yes' he said 'it was OK then and would hear no more about it.

I later asked Simon who told me 'if you prove the tree was healthy it's called an act of god and if it had fallen in to next door they could not claim against us'.

But what is morally right is another matter.

Basically this

I’ve done a bit of research on this recently because I want to build a new fence under my neighbours dead ash trees!

Basically, a tree falling is an act of god so it would be down to the fence owner or his insurance to repair.

If the tree was obviously dangerous or likely to fall and the owner knew but ignored the issue, then you have a case to try and recover the costs.

Not quite what I expected, but that is basically what the NFU came up with.

 

[Ivorbiggun]

Basically this

I’ve done a bit of research on this recently because I want to build a new fence under my neighbours dead ash trees!

Basically, a tree falling is an act of god so it would be down to the fence owner or his insurance to repair.

If the tree was obviously dangerous or likely to fall and the owner knew but ignored the issue, then you have a case to try and recover the costs.

Not quite what I expected, but that is basically what the NFU came up with.

Who in their right mind would build a fence under some dead ash trees.

 

[Danllan]

A fencing contractor...

 

[Bignor Farmer]

Who in their right mind would build a fence under some dead ash trees.

Someone who needs a fence around his field and has tried for over years to engage with neighbour to have them felled!

 

[Bignor Farmer]

Someone who needs a fence around his field and has tried for over years to engage with neighbour to have them felled!

I have informed them that they are dangerous, they know themselves that they are dangerous and they know that I intend to fence the boundary.

Believe it or not, their preferred option is to keep claiming on their insurance for my fence repairs. Madness but there it is

 

[betweenthelines]

Aren't landowners/occupiers under a legal "duty of care" to have trees near roads or neighbours regularly inspected to ensure they are safe?

If a tree fell and killed someone I doubt if "never been inspected so just thought it was safe" would be an acceptable defence. Rather like saying you think your car is roadworthy because it's never failed an MOT -because it has never been tested

 

[suffolksmallholder]

Aren't landowners/occupiers under a legal "duty of care" to have trees near roads or neighbours regularly inspected to ensure they are safe?

If a tree fell and killed someone I doubt if "never been inspected so just thought it was safe" would be an acceptable defence. Rather like saying you think your car is roadworthy because it's never failed an MOT -because it has never been tested

Yes.
A survey and condition report for each and every tree.
SS

 

[Steevo]

@Nigel Wellings might be happy to advise.

 

[Nigel Wellings]

Fairly complicated area of law with regard to falling trees. Basic premise is that if the tree is sound and healthy with no rot in it and it comes down then a court is very unlikely to say the tree owner has any liability for the damage caused to property or injury to persons. On the other hand any rot in the tree and owner will be legally liable. Public liability insurance covers the tree owner for this legal liability and will pay out.
Any insurance policy will say in small print; "you must take reasonable precautions against losses". If said tree has not been inspected, then has reasonable precaution not been taken? This is where the grey area comes. I have seen Insurers pay claims where tree has been rotten , it concerns me though at some point one of them will think they can wriggle and think they can get out of such a claim.

 

[som farmer]

that explains why the barristers wife, took so many pictures when we were cutting it up, to clear the road, good job it was sound inside.

l would love to know why it came down, full leaf, no wind, looked healthy it obviously wasn't though.

 

[ollie989898]

Someone who needs a fence around his field and has tried for over years to engage with neighbour to have them felled!

Push/cut them down if they are already dead? What is he going to do, sue you for pushing down dead trees?

 

[Danllan]

Fairly complicated area of law with regard to falling trees. Basic premise is that if the tree is sound and healthy with no rot in it and it comes down then a court is very unlikely to say the tree owner has any liability for the damage caused to property or injury to persons. On the other hand any rot in the tree and owner will be legally liable. Public liability insurance covers the tree owner for this legal liability and will pay out...

I am not going to argue the minutiae of insurance contracts, because the possible wording is endless, and the cover any policy holder may receive is entirely down to it. But, with regard to liability... the emboldened text is entirely wrong.

The matter is founded upon and decided by the ownership of the tree; and that was established in the Brooker case over a century ago. The matter then becomes a simple one of us all having a general duty of care to others, and their property and interests. The later Caparo case established the current test for applicability, and subsequent judgments have confirmed it.

Such a duty of care extends from us to our property, be it a car, a dog or a tree; if a tree is yours, regardless of its health, you are liable for any damage or injury resulting from it.

Happy to write that this is not my own field of practise, however this sort of thing is covered in year one of any law degree. I've seen it applied any number of times, including a couple of instances where the Civil rule regarding liability set up the Criminal culpability of my own clients.

 

[Nigel Wellings]

I am not going to argue the minutiae of insurance contracts, because the possible wording is endless, and the cover any policy holder may receive is entirely down to it. But, with regard to liability... the emboldened text is entirely wrong.

The matter is founded upon and decided by the ownership of the tree; and that was established in the Brooker case over a century ago. The matter then becomes a simple one of us all having a general duty of care to others, and their property and interests. The later Caparo case established the current test for applicability, and subsequent judgments have confirmed it.

Such a duty of care extends from us to our property, be it a car, a dog or a tree; if a tree is yours, regardless of its health, you are liable for any damage or injury resulting from it.

Happy to write that this is not my own field of practise, however this sort of thing is covered in year one of any law degree. I've seen it applied any number of times, including a couple of instances where the Civil rule regarding liability set up the Criminal culpability of my own clients.

Very interested by your knowledge and I am certainly no legal expert, just really applying what I have seen Insurers do after claims regarding falling trees in the past. I have certainly seen them refuse to pay out for damage where healthy trees have caused damage to third party property, yet pay out where rotten trees have caused damage.

 

[ollie989898]

Very interested by your knowledge and I am certainly no legal expert, just really applying what I have seen Insurers do after claims regarding falling trees in the past. I have certainly seen them refuse to pay out for damage where healthy trees have caused damage to third party property, yet pay out where rotten trees have caused damage.

Can you explain how this all works in practice?

A half dead tree that is clearly fudged and resides on neighbour's property falls over the fence and crushes your car into smithereens. Does your insurance pay or does the neighbours?

 

[Nigel Wellings]

Can you explain how this all works in practice?

A half dead tree that is clearly fudged and resides on neighbour's property falls over the fence and crushes your car into smithereens. Does your insurance pay or does the neighbours?

In my view neighbour is 100% LIABLE. In practical terms it is going to be quickest for you to claim on your car insurance policy and expect your car insurers to claim the money back from next door neighbours insurers.

 

[Danllan]

Very interested by your knowledge and I am certainly no legal expert, just really applying what I have seen Insurers do after claims regarding falling trees in the past. I have certainly seen them refuse to pay out for damage where healthy trees have caused damage to third party property, yet pay out where rotten trees have caused damage.

As I wrote, I don't comment on the insurance side of things because of the near-infinite possibilities due to wording of contracts. Nor do I lay claim to any great expertise in this field, since my own was Criminal, but... some things are fundamental and this is one of them.

 

[Steevo]

Are we talking liability....or negligence?

As @Danllan says it would make sense for the owner to be liable for their tree or other property.

But also that owner then has a duty of care to others, and therefore could be considered negligent if they allowed a rotten or dangerous tree to remain in situ. I'm guessing this could apply knowingly or unknowingly, within reason.

It's hard to tread the line of "enough" without being conned into "too much" and spending a fortune on "professionals" to do tick box inspections that are money for old rope.


The trouble is often you don't know whether you've done "enough" or not until it comes down to there being an issue....and by then it's too late.

 

[Danllan]

Are we talking liability....or negligence?

As @Danllan says it would make sense for the owner to be liable for their tree or other property.

But also that owner then has a duty of care to others, and therefore could be considered negligent if they allowed a rotten or dangerous tree to remain in situ. I'm guessing this could apply knowingly or unknowingly, within reason.

It's hard to tread the line of "enough" without being conned into "too much" and spending a fortune on "professionals" to do tick box inspections that are money for old rope.


The trouble is often you don't know whether you've done "enough" or not until it comes down to there being an issue....and by then it's too late.

Sense or not, it's the law...

As I wrote earlier, it's pretty simple, if you own it you have a liability for it, doesn't matter if it is rotten or not its down to the owner. I f it is rotten and you know it presents an increased risk and do nothing - and all that can be established - then negligence and, depending on circumstances, Criminal culpability can come into play.

Something I don't know - and am not going to look up - is what the situation is with long-term tenants...

My presumption, based on a bit of knowledge of broadly analogous things, is that the responsibility etc. will then fall to the tenant, unless there are terms stating otherwise... anyone got definite knowledge of this?

 

[Bogweevil]

Your tree, your responsibility.

You have duty of care which can be discharged by having a qualified arborist report every five years on large trees that might cause harm if they topple.

 

[som farmer]

cousin got a bit worried a few years back, over roadside trees, and had his 'checked' out. And a number were classed as 'potential risk', he paid for the survey, paid to have them cut down, and paid to remove them. Massive heap of firewood in tree surgeons yard, reckon he had a very well paid job there.

but it is the 'potential risk', that screws you, and l suspect that's why councils cut down tree's in towns, its an easy way to reduce risk, the complaints about felling them, are probably less than the protests if one fell, and caused injury.

people cannot have it both ways.