I have done a bit of research using various online sources (some more trustworthy than others) and have put this together in the hope of being able to use in a report. I was hoping some people more knowledgeable on law would kindly comment on how accurate and up to date this is or whether they feel something needs amending or has been omitted. Thanks in advance. Please be as critical as you like, I'm thick skinned and could really do with the help!
Liability for Trees
Owners, in addition to any person(s) responsible for the management of trees owe a duty of care to those who visit their land. The liability comes under civil and criminal laws:
Civil Liability
Owners and tree managers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of those (being any person who can be reasonably foreseen) who may come within the vicinity of a tree. The standard of care that is used for benchmarking purposes is that of the “reasonable and prudent landowner”. Breach of this duty of care may lead to action arising against the tree owner/manager under the tort of negligence. The tort of nuisance also dictates that land owners/managers have a similar duty of care to neighbouring land.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act provides that person(s) with control over land (occupier) is obliged to take reasonable care such that any visitor (under the 1957 Act) or a trespasser (under the 1984 Act) will be reasonably safe, where the occupier knows of the potential presence of such people on their land and of the risk posed to them by features of the land such as trees. A higher standard of care is owed to a visitor than that to a trespasser. An even greater duty of care is owed to a child as occupiers must expect children to behave with less care than adults.
Warning notices, warning of specific dangers posed by a tree (or trees) may be sufficient to absolve an occupier from liability in that they may, by such notice, have taken all reasonable care for the visitor’s safety in the circumstances. However, in general, warning notices should not be relied upon alone to protect against a danger as they may not exclude or restrict liability under the Occupiers’ Liabilities Acts resulting from negligence.
Criminal Liability
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that employees (section 2(1) and members of the public (section 3(2)) and other persons such as self-employed people – section 3(3)) are not put at risk.
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999: Regulation 3 requires employers and self-employed persons to make suitable and sufficient risk assessments regarding health and safety.
Breaches of either the Act or Regulations can result in a criminal prosecution against the employer.