Tree Liability Risk: The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees

Question: What liabilities could property owners face if failed tree maintenance leads to injury or damage?

Answer: Property owners in Ontario have a legal duty to ensure their premises, including trees, are reasonably safe for visitors. Negligence in tree maintenance, especially if aware of a hazardous condition, can lead to liability for injuries or damages, as outlined in the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. Timely tree care is crucial to mitigate risks and protect both property and visitors. For legal guidance on property safety obligations, contact Caruso Legal Services.

Liability Involving Tree Maintenance

The value and benefits of trees are often overlooked and the potential liability risks associated with trees are often underestimated or misunderstood. It is important for owners, contractors, and other individuals to take due care of trees so to minimize the potential for trees to cause injury or damage and thus to minimize the potential liability risks.

The Law

Duty of Care

The basic principles of common law, particularly negligence and the legal test regarding duty of care as founded within the Donoghue v. Stevenson case (a general principles case rather than tree specific case), prescribe that property owners owe a duty to ensure that other persons and the property of others persons is reasonably safe. In Ontario, these duties are also codified the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, whereas it is said:

Negligently Performed Maintenance

Owners of trees, or others responsible for trees (such as hired maintenance contractors), generally face liability only when it was known, or constructively known, that a tree failure risk was present and the owner (or others) failed to properly tend to the tree.  In this way it can be thought that the injury or damage was a result of delay in caring for the tree rather than the result of risks inherent in a tree.  Essentially, the negligent failure to maintain is a man-made risk rather than a natural tree risk. On the point of liability for failure to maintain trees, such was addressed within the case of Hallok v. Toronto Hydro Electric System Ltd., 2003 CanLII 8519, wherein it was said:

As such, it seems that knowledge, or constructive knowledge, of a dangerous condition is a requirement of liability for negligent maintenance of trees.  Note that "constructive knowledge" is knowledge which the law deems a person ought to have based on reasonableness.  If a reasonably diligent person would know of a dangerous condition this is "constructive knowledge" and proving actual knowledge becomes unnecessary.  Constructive knowledge is often much easier to prove than actual knowledge.  As an example, following a severe storm, a court may deem that reasonably acting property owners would inspect trees for broken branches among other dangerous conditions.  In this regard, it is important to note that intentionally avoiding the inspection of trees, among other things, and thereby choosing to remain ignorant of a dangerous condition may be deemed an act from which constructive knowledge is imposed.

Conclusion

Tree owners, or other persons who are hired to provide the care and maintenance of trees on behalf of the owners, are prescribed by law with a duty of care to reasonably ensure that the trees are maintained in a safe condition.  If a person becomes injured or if property becomes damaged by a unreasonably maintained tree, liability may arise.