MR MICHAEL HOYLE v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

A landowner’s duty in relation to roadside trees requires reasonable and proportionate care. It does not make the landowner an insurer against natural failure. Regular inspections and fuller arboricultural inspections are required where circumstances reveal an apparent danger or potential problem.

The standard for a professional tree inspector is that of an ordinarily skilled inspector acting reasonably in the circumstances. A claimant must show that the inspection fell below that standard and, where supported by competing professional opinion, that the defendants’ approach was not logically supportable. A tree’s later failure does not itself establish a pre-existing visible defect, breach or causation.

The claimant, administering the estate of David Hoyle, brought a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 after a cherry tree on land owned by Hampshire County Council fell onto Mr Hoyle’s vehicle, causing his death.

Liability was tried separately from quantum. The claimant alleged that Hampshire County Council, its tree-survey contractor and the arboriculturist who inspected the tree had failed to identify structural defects, had mis-scored the tree’s risk and had failed to prevent its failure. The defendants denied negligence and disputed the applicability of section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.

The central issues were whether the tree presented a visible risk of failure when inspected, whether the inspections and risk assessment were competent, and whether any breach caused the accident.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to establish any breach of duty by Hampshire County Council, Tree Surveys or Mr Power.
2. The common-law principles stated in Stagecoach South Western Trains v Hind and Steel and applied in Witley Parish Council v Cavanagh were accepted. A tree owner must act as a reasonable and prudent landowner, undertake regular preliminary observations and arrange fuller arboricultural inspections where a potential problem or other appropriate trigger exists. The duty is proportionate and does not require the landowner to insure against natural risks.
3. The professional standard was that of an ordinarily skilled tree inspector, applying Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The court also applied the logical-support qualification in Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority: competing professional opinion may be rejected only where it cannot withstand logical analysis.
4. The evidence did not prove that tree 572 was structurally defective or that any defect was visible to a reasonably competent inspector. Its asymmetrical crown and root system were capable of being natural adaptations. The inspections by Mr Soffe and Mr Power were conducted with reasonable care. Further probing was not required because no obvious feature indicated instability.
5. The court accepted that the tree failed through a combination of factors, including asymmetrical roots and crown, waterlogged ground and wind. The claimant did not prove that a higher matrix score or the recommended works would have prevented the failure.
6. It was unnecessary to determine whether section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 applied. If necessary, the judge would have concluded that the fallen tree was not part of the fabric of the highway, its presence was transitory and its failure was not caused by lack of maintenance.
7. It was likewise unnecessary to decide whether the third and fourth defendants owed a duty of care seven months after the inspection. On the evidence, no ignored emergency or dangerous defect had been established.