Tree Liability Risk:

Question: 1) When can a tree owner or contractor be liable for injuries or property damage from a fallen limb in Ontario?

Answer: 2) If you’re dealing with a tree-related injury or property damage claim in Ontario, Vagans Legal can help you understand likely liability under negligence and the Occupier’s Liability Act duty to keep premises reasonably safe, including when a court may expect inspections after storms and where constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition can be argued; for example, liability generally hinges on evidence the owner or contractor knew or ought to have known about the dangerous tree condition and failed to take reasonable care, not just that the limb fell.   A Paralegal at Vagans Legal can assist you with claim basics, evidence checklists, and next steps across Vaughan, Toronto, and the rest of Ontario, call (416) 473-8472 to get started today.

Liability Involving Tree Maintenance

Although trees are extensively found throughout our urban and rural landscape, the value and benefits of trees are often taken for granted. Additionally, the potential liability risks are often unappreciated or misperceived. Owners and contractors, among others, should carefully heed the potential liability risks arising from the ownership, care, or control, of trees.

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:

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.