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 observed that although the defendants had not complied with their duty, ‘it is no less plain that, if they had, it would have made no difference. The tree was just such a tree as [the expert witness] says the owner might consider safe.’
Where a person takes it upon himself to perform a task in circumstances where a reasonable man would think it necessary to call in an expert the standard of care and degree of foreseeability the law will require of him may well be that of an expert.
Lord Reid outlined the extent of the duty: ‘So in my judgment the appellants can only succeed in this appeal if they can show that there was something about this particular tree which should have suggested that lopping or other action was necessary. What inspection will suggest will depend on the knowledge and experience of the inspector, and there has been some controversy about the degree of knowledge and experience necessary for adequate inspection. Plainly it would be no use to send a person who knew nothing about trees. The alternatives put forward were that he should be an expert or that he should have at least such knowledge and experience of trees as a landowner with trees o his land would generally have. As the question depends on what a reasonable man would do I think that it may be put in this way. Would a reasonable and careful owner, without expert knowledge but accustomed to dealing with his trees and having a countryman’s general knowledge about them, think it necessary to call in an expert to advise him or would he think it sufficient to act at lest in the first instance on his own knowledge and judgment? The evidence in this case does not suggest to me that he would, and does not convince me that he should call in an expert. There must be many owners of elm trees beside busy roads and if it were proper for them to seek expert advice I would expect, making every allowance for the facts that not all owners are reasonable and careful and that even reasonable people frequently omit to do what they know they ought to do, that it would appear that expert advice was not infrequently sought. But the evidence in this case does not bear this out.’
Lord Radcliffe raised some questions as to the liability of a tree-owner which he did not finally answer. In the course of his discussion he said: ‘It would be conceded, I believe, that there is somehow a difference between the legal responsibilities of the owner of a mature forest tree, in a built-up area, immediately adjacent to a busy street, and the responsibilities of the owner of a stand of timber bordering a country lane. But is the difference only this, that the latter is entitled to take more chances at the expense of his neighbours than the former? I am not certain of the logic, for a tree or its branch only falls once; and it must be poor consolation to an injured passer-by in the country lane to be assured that the chances were all against his being at the place of the accident at the moment when it occurred.’
Lord Normand said: ‘The Court of Appeal applied what is, I think, the proper test – the conduct to be expected from a reasonable and prudent land-owner – and held on the evidence that the appellants had satisfied this test because there was nothing dangerous in the appearance of the tree, no sign of disease, advanced age, disproportion of crown to stem, or rising roots . . The test of the conduct to be expected from a reasonable and prudent landlord sounds more simple than it really is. For it postulates some degree of knowledge on the part of landlords which must necessarily fall short of the knowledge possessed by scientific arboriculturists but which must surely be greater than the knowledge possessed by the ordinary urban observer of trees or even of the countryman not practically concerned with their care.’
Lord Normand, Lord Porter, Lord Reid, Lord Oaksey, Lord Radcliffe
[1951] AC 88
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind and Another TCC 11-Jun-2014
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Negligence
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.526445