Yes No Share to Facebook
Tree Liability Risk: The Duty of Care Owed to Persons Who May Be Harmed by Trees
Question: What are the legal responsibilities for tree maintenance in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario, property owners owe a duty of care to ensure trees on their premises are safely maintained to prevent injury or damage. As set out in the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, failure to address known or constructively known hazards can result in liability. Proper and timely maintenance is essential, especially after events like severe storms that might compromise tree safety. To mitigate risks and legal responsibilities, proactive tree care is crucial. For personalized legal guidance on tree maintenance and liability, consult with us to protect your interests.
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
Property owners have a duty to ensure that other people and the property property of other people are reasonably safe from harm arising from the negligence of a property owner. Such a duty in law was established within the general principles case of, among others, Donoghue v. Stevenson, which established the legal test for duty of care within the basic principles of negligence law. In Ontario, such a duty of care is also codified per the Occupier's Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, wherein it is stated:
3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.
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:
[14] It would appear to be common ground that a property owner, such as Park Lawn, cannot be held responsible for damage resulting from a limb on a tree falling simply on the basis that the limb or tree fell. If the evidence does not establish that there was knowledge on the part of the defendant, Park Lawn, of a dangerous condition of a tree or that there was a dangerous condition of which the defendant Park Lawn ought to have knowledge, a finding of negligence is unavailable as a matter of law. (See: Culley v. Maguire, [1957] O.J. No. 52 (C.A.) at p. 1; Quinlan v. Gates, [2000] O.J. No. 5292(S.C.J.) at p. 2; Buttoni et al. v. Henderson et al., 21 O.R. 309 (H.C.J.) at p. 371; Doucette v. Parent, [1996] O.J. No. 3493 (Gen. Div.) at p. 4; Gasho v. Clinton (Town), [2001] O.J. No. 4505 (S.C.J. (Small Claims) at p. 4).
Accordingly, it appears that some level of awareness by knowledge, or constructive knowledge, of a dangerous condition is required if liability is to arise for negligence in the ownership, care, or control, of a tree. It is notable that "constructive knowledge" means knowledge that the law imparts upon a person who ought to actually hold knowledge based upon reasonableness principles; and as such, if a reasonably acting person would know of about a dangerous condition such is "constructive knowledge" and proving actually held knowledge is unnecessary. In many circumstances, proving constructive knowledge is much easier than proving actually held 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.
