|
|
Falling Trees - Who has legal responsibility?
|
Various factors may be considered when there is damage fromm a falling tree, but ultimately a court has to decide whether a relevant duty of care has been established, and if it has been breached. |
In a recent case, a man was killed while sleeping in his bed when a tree blown over by very strong winds fell on the roof of his house. The tree was one of four next to the house and was the subject of a preservation order, requiring council consent if it were to be cut down. |
According to his wife's evidence, the man had requested the council's advice on the health of the trees in fear for the safety of himself and his family. An officer had inspected the trees and advised that they were healthy and safe, and should not be cut down. |
Initially, a court decided that the officer had exercised reasonable care and that the advice given and the refusal to allow the trees to be cut down did not amount to negligence.
|
However, the appeal court overruled this. It awarded damages of almost $750,000 to the man's wife for damage to the house, for rent payable during reconstruction, and as damages for the death of her husband. |
The council's liability was based partly on the "significant and special measure of control over the safety of home owners who brought to the council's attention their fears that overhanging trees were dangerous". |
Through its officer the council had agreed to advise the family whether the trees were dangerous. The officer's expressed opinion was a representation by him of his capacity to advise, based upon his expertise and experience. This raised the standard of care required of him. |
In the circumstances the advice was negligent. |
Expert evidence at the trial revealed a number of contributing factors, including water-logged soils and a decayed root system, which would have been revealed by a more thorough inspection. |
