Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind & Anor

A reasonable and prudent landowner is not generally required to engage an arboriculturalist to inspect every tree periodically without a warning sign or other trigger. The landowner should make regular informal or preliminary observations, particularly where trees border a highway, railway or neighbouring property. A fuller expert inspection is required where those observations reveal a potential problem, or where the landowner lacks the knowledge or capacity to conduct a meaningful preliminary inspection. A contractor engaged to perform specified tree works owes duties defined by the retainer and must avoid creating danger, but does not ordinarily owe a general duty to inspect and warn third parties about unrelated defects. A duty to warn requires an obvious problem; it does not itself impose a duty to undertake wide-ranging investigations.

An eastward-facing stem of an ash tree fell from a private garden onto the railway, damaging an empty train. The railway company claimed agreed damages of £325,000 from the landowner, Ms Hind, and the tree surgeon, Mr Steel.

The claim against Ms Hind alleged that she should have arranged expert inspections or discovered concealed decay and an included-bark union. The claim against Mr Steel alleged that his 2006 works created a wider duty to inspect and warn about the tree’s safety. The issues concerned the scope of a landowner’s duty, the need for informal and expert inspections, proximity, the scope of a contractor’s retainer and any duty to warn.

1. Claims dismissed. The claimant’s claims against both defendants were dismissed. Damages had been agreed, but liability was not established.
2. Applying Caminer v Northern Investment Trust Ltd and the other tree cases, the landowner’s duty was to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner. The duty did not make the owner an insurer of nature or impose an unreasonable burden. Regular informal or preliminary observations were required, especially for trees adjoining a railway. A fuller inspection by an arboriculturalist was generally triggered only by something revealed during those observations which caused concern. It might also be required where the landowner lacked the knowledge or capacity to carry out a meaningful preliminary inspection.
3. There was no freestanding obligation on an ordinary individual landowner to pay for periodic expert inspections without any trigger or warning sign. Caminer did not establish such a general rule. It concerned a property company, and the particular facts included the recognised risks associated with elms. Any wider obligation depended on the facts and degree.
4. Ms Hind was capable of carrying out meaningful informal inspections and did so. The tree appeared healthy, with full foliage and no visible signs of structural danger. The included-bark union and decayed wound were concealed by ivy and vegetation. A reasonable landowner was not required to struggle through dense vegetation and strip ivy from an apparently healthy tree to search for concealed defects. Her duty therefore extended no further than informal or preliminary observations, which she had performed properly.
5. Mr Steel was a contractor, not an arboriculturalist. His obligations were confined by his agreed workscope. He owed duties to carry out the specified work properly and without creating danger, but no general obligation to inspect or advise about the tree. There was insufficient proximity between him and the railway company for the alleged wider tortious duty.
6. The contractual duty-to-warn authorities did not establish a tortious duty to warn this third party. Even if such a duty could arise, it would be triggered only by a clear or obviously dangerous defect. The tree appeared healthy, the relevant defects were concealed, and Mr Steel’s workscope did not require the proposed detailed investigation. Guidance on climbing practice was not a mandatory checklist.