Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind & Anor [2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC) (11 June 2014)

Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd v Hind & Anor [2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC) (11 June 2014)

A reasonable and prudent landowner is not required to engage an expert arboriculturalist to inspect trees as a matter of course; the duty is discharged by regular informal inspections unless there is a visible sign or trigger indicating a problem. Ms Hind carried out regular informal inspections and there was no visible sign of danger; therefore, she was not in breach of duty. The tree surgeon, Mr Steel, was not engaged to inspect for defects and the defect was not reasonably discoverable in the circumstances; he was not in breach of duty.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1891 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd; First Defendant: Ms Kathleen Hind; Second Defendant: Mr Andrew Steel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages (property Damage/negligence) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed against both defendants
Legal Topics
Negligence, Nuisance, Landowner Liability, Duty of Care, Tree Safety, Professional Liability
Tort Law Property Law Negligence Nuisance Landowner Liability Duty of Care Tree Safety Professional Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd

Claimant

Ms Kathleen Hind

First Defendant

Mr Andrew Steel

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages (property Damage/negligence) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landowner is liable in negligence/nuisance for damage caused by a tree falling from their property onto a railway line
  2. 2 Whether the landowner owed a duty to have the tree inspected by an expert arboriculturalist
  3. 3 Whether the landowner discharged their duty by informal inspections

Ratio Decidendi

A reasonable and prudent landowner is not required to engage an expert arboriculturalist to inspect trees as a matter of course; the duty is discharged by regular informal inspections unless there is a visible sign or trigger indicating a problem. Ms Hind carried out regular informal inspections and there was no visible sign of danger; therefore, she was not in breach of duty. The tree surgeon, Mr Steel, was not engaged to inspect for defects and the defect was not reasonably discoverable in the circumstances; he was not in breach of duty.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against both defendants

Orders

  • No liability found against Ms Hind or Mr Steel
  • Claimant's claim for damages is dismissed