Branches fallen from tree, am I liable ??

threeleggedhors

I have some fine old Horsechestnut trees in my garden. I had to clear a load of brances that had fallen onto the road in front of my house. It got me thinking though, if they'd fallen on a car or person, am I liable ?? If so, does my house insurance cover such an incident ??

FreudianSlippers

It's hard to really say without specifics (which would be in breach of charter if it was a real scenario) but the IMO the answers are most likely and probably.

seamus

I don't think you're liable. I was always under the impression that overhangs were the responsibility of the person into whose property the trees are overhanging.

Though oddly, the overhanging branches remain the property of the tree's owner (and as such he is liable for disposing of them).

Interesting.

But if the branches actually came from your property, or part of the tree fell out of your property onto the road, then I would say as above, most likely and probably.

FreudianSlippers

seamus wrote: »

I don't think you're liable. I was always under the impression that overhangs were the responsibility of the person into whose property the trees are overhanging.

Though oddly, the overhanging branches remain the property of the tree's owner (and as such he is liable for disposing of them).

Interesting.

But if the branches actually came from your property, or part of the tree fell out of your property onto the road, then I would say as above, most likely and probably.

Ah I didn't think of that... you could be right.

I was thinking more that the tree was on his property and the branches were blown out onto the street.. completely ignored the overhang issue.

threeleggedhors

If that is the case then does that mean that councils are not responsible for making sure roads are safe from falling branches ??

MagicSean

If the branches were blown off as a result of the wind would that not be an act of god?

234

Act of god or force majeur is really more of an insurance and contract thing. If the hypothetical case was one in negligence then there might be the possibility of claiming that such extreme weather was not forseeable and therefore beyond the standard of care owed, or that it broke the chain of causation.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

Act of god or force majeur is really more of an insurance and contract thing. If the hypothetical case was one in negligence then there might be the possibility of claiming that such extreme weather was not forseeable and therefore beyond the standard of care owed, or that it broke the chain of causation.

That being said, you are responsible for keeping your property in a safe condition. Trees need maintenance as well... if it could be shown that your tree was in an unsafe condition (rot, etc.) then the picture would be different.

234

I actually seem to remember that McMahon & Binchy cover the issue of trees overhanging roads in quite a lot of detail (comparatively). I might check it later.

234

According to McM & B there are two divergent strands in the case law. One favouring a standard that comes close to Rylands v Fletcher for the owners of premises adjoining roads and another strand that stays with a normal duty of care (this is all discussed in relation to nuisance but there are some general comments on a duty of care). In Lynch v Hetherton O'Hanlon J held that the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent damage from falling trees. In Gillen v Fair O'Hanlon J held that the defendant had discharged his obligations where he inspected the trees on his property himself, without expert advice, and while the tree was rotten inside there was no extrenal evidence of this. The court rejected the idea that every farmer in the counrty had to employ an expert to inspect every tree on his property that adjoined a road.
So the position might be that once you inspect your trees and look for obvious signs of decay you have discharged your duty.

Victor

Perhaps get your trees inspected by a tree surgeon.

70 year old plane tree across the road had to be cut down over the last few days because of damage. The tree had previosuly been damaged, presumably by wind, but it wasn't obvious, but this time quite a large branch came down, rendering the rest of the tree unbalanced.

jaybeeveedub

234 wrote: »

According to McM & B there are two divergent strands in the case law. One favouring a standard that comes close to Rylands v Fletcher for .

Does it use Rylands and Fletcher... I would have thought it would be very hard to show that an owner brought tree on to his land for his own benefit... surely so-and-so v BrayUDC would cover a tree a being part of the land...??

234

Doea anybody really use Rylands v Fletcher anymore?

jaybeeveedub

twas used in that massive buncefield expolsion in the UK

Colorquest v Total I think it was called....

RobTree

threeleggedhors wrote: »

I have some fine old Horsechestnut trees in my garden. I had to clear a load of brances that had fallen onto the road in front of my house. It got me thinking though, if they'd fallen on a car or person, am I liable ?? If so, does my house insurance cover such an incident ??

If there are obvious signs of damage (decay / lean / die back) and a high target rating (it being likely to cause harm if it fails) then you could be considered negligent.

Horse Chestnuts are suffering from 2 diseases which are starting to kill them and shred branches. 1 is a leaf miner (egg laying insect) and the other is called Bleeding Canker.
If the leaves have started falling off very early then this could be the problem. Might be worth getting them checked out.