Theoretical debate regarding trees and bourndaries

FutureGuy

Hello all,
Just having a theoretical debate with a friend.

Lets say that in February 2014, a storm damages trees at the back of property owned by A and it falls into property owned by B.

No damage is done that could be verified, but B tells A that he is concerned by the fact that another tree could fall and damage in future, especially if we get another big storm.

The back of property A and the front of property B share the border. The border is a ditch/tream and on either side, there are trees. On the side of A, there are also a row of evergreen trees which had been planted and cared for perfectly by A.

The lines are the ditch, the "O" are the trees along the border and XXXXX are the trees planted by A.

O O O O O O

---

---

O O O O O O O O O O O
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Let's say that, in order to take away any stress on the side of A, and after consulting B of the fact, A spends money to cut down all evergreens (X) in order to reduce accountability to zero in case of damage. B was advised that A would leave a caravan on their side expose to the winds.

After finding out of the plans by A to cut down the (X) trees, B now demands us to make alterations to trees on the borders.

B will not produce any land deeds.

Now that all X trees are down, thus minimizing any issues with side A trees damaging side B, B now are looking for legal advice regarding A exposing them to winds as a result of cutting down said trees, even though they were warned that if we get rid of these trees to minimize tree damage in a storm, they could have more issues with wind.

Let's also say that B has made alterations to the trees on their border (Marked in red) in order to accommodate a caravan. Does this not mean that they accept liability for that tree if it was a border tree?

Any insight on this theoretical scenario is very welcome. Surely B have no reason to not challenge that A has exposed them to wind?

Mr. Incognito

Thats confusing.

The use of double negatives should also be avoided.

Your starting points are

1. Law is compensatory for actual damages.
2. Injunctions are for anticipatory breaches. The damage must be ascertainable and damages must not be an adequate remedy. Doesnt apply.

So neither have an actionable case. People can generally do whatever the hell they want on their land. Wind is not within a persons control and you dont owe a duty of care to shield your neighbours land even if there was branches flying previously. You would however be liable for anthing that escapes from your land so a prudent landowner would get the chainsaw out.

People dont produce deeds btw. The border would be available on the folio in the land registry.

I dont know what you and your friend were arguing over tbh. I could only suggest you are both wrong.

Manach

The add to the above poster, in that there is likely no rights to provide shelter to a neighbour from the case of Phipps v. Pears [1964]. Here it was a neighbouring wall that provided the protection from the elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phipps_v_Pears