Nuisance - trees

Citation

(1998), "Nuisance - trees", Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1998.11316aab.018

Nuisance - trees

Nuisance ­ trees

The following two cases make it clear that a local authority may be held liable for damage caused by trees within their ownership even though problems may have originated earlier.

In Chapman v. Barking & Dagenham LBC [1997] 48 EG 154 the plaintiff suffered severe injuries when the branch of a tree owned by the local authority fell on his car during a high wind. Evidence showed that the tree suffered from earlier pruning wounds and the cut wood showed evidence of bacteria. The tree was planted in the 1930s but the council had no formal system for inspection or maintenance before 1990.

The court felt that there was evidence to warrant a climbing inspection of the tree even before 1990. There was a defect in the tree caused by decay and the council had failed in its duty to inspect. The council or its predecessor had altered the natural state of the tree by pruning and had created a potential danger through decay which they failed to remedy. They were thus liable for nuisance if they either caused the problem or, even if it arises without fault on their part, they fail to remedy it within a reasonable time after they become, or should have become, aware of it (see: Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 KB 332).

In Hurst & another v. Hampshire County Council [1997]44 EG 206subsidence to the plaintiff's property was caused by the roots of an oak tree growing in the verge of the adjacent road. The tree was planted before ownership of the road vested in the defendant Highway Authority. Damages were awarded to the plaintiffs at first instance on the grounds that the Highway Authority had a duty to maintain the tree under s.96(1) Highways Act 1980. Also they had sufficient interest in the tree to be liable in nuisance and negligence.

The defendants appealed on the basis that since there had been no claim under s.96 for breach of statutory duty there could be no liability.

This argument was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Once the highway was adopted sufficient property in trees planted before or after adoption vested in the Highway Authority to ground an action for nuisance and negligence at the suit of a road user or adjoining owners who suffer damage to person or property which was reasonably foreseeable.