Can landowners be liable for damage caused by trees that fall onto railway infrastructure?

[Recessio]

Moderator note: Split from

OHLE Down at Wivenhoe following tree collapse

Services are still suspended between Colchester and Clacton / Walton due to a tree falling across the track at Wivenhoe. Could the power not be isolated allowing services to run further up the branch?

www.railforums.co.uk

And AIUI the owners of said tree had been advised several times their tree was a potential risk.

Could the landowners of the tree end up paying compensation to the railway if they were deemed negligent?

 

[speedy1]

You mean beyond costs of doing the work? Theoretically possible I guess – there must be some legal precedent.

IANAL but if Network Rail had been aware of the issue for some time, I imagine they would need to explain why they had not sought a council notice or an injunction to have it dealt with (assuming they didn't seek such a remedy)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I always assumed they could. It would make sense.

 

[davidhg]

Does it work the other way round? Is Network Rail liable for their trees causing damage to private property, for example falling on my shed from their embankment?

 

[EveningStar]

there must be some legal precedent.

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) still is, I understand, the leading case that establishes a strict liability in tort for nuisance cause to adjacent land, although Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) says that the damage must be reasonably foreseeable. Imagine this is where the lawyers for Network Rail and the land owner will fight it out. A good law case on this matter might focus a few land owning minds as witness a number of accidents over the last few years.

 

[The exile]

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) still is, I understand, the leading case that establishes a strict liability in tort for nuisance cause to adjacent land, although Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) says that the damage must be reasonably foreseeable. Imagine this is where the lawyers for Network Rail and the land owner will fight it out. A good law case on this matter might focus a few land owning minds as witness a number of accidents over the last few years.

According to another thread, the landowner had been told several times that the tree posed a risk to the railway. As for being foreseeable, other than a tree “leaping through the air” having been struck by lightning, I should have thought that any damage a tree could do by falling / causing subsidence etc is entirely foreseeable - since “foreseeable” relates to possibility, not certainty.

 

[EveningStar]

According to another thread, the landowner had been told several times that the tree posed a risk to the railway. As for being foreseeable, other than a tree “leaping through the air” having been struck by lightning, I should have thought that any damage a tree could do by falling / causing subsidence etc is entirely foreseeable - since “foreseeable” relates to possibility, not certainty.

In my professional experience, some landowners can be remarkably, and in some cases I feel deliberately, unaware of their liabilities, and will scream blue murder when it is pointed out to them. Somehow this report does not surprise me

 

[Harpo]

The SVR’s landslip in 2025, caused by a fallen tree, resulted in a letter to the SVR’s neighbours:

In the letter, which was sent to landowners bordering the SVR by recorded post, Mr Dunster added: “As owners of trees you have a legal obligation to ensure they are properly maintained. Under the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 landowners are responsible for managing and maintaining trees on their land to prevent nuisance or harm to adjacent land and particularly infrastructure such as railways which carry passengers.”

Severn Valley Railway warns landowners about their liability after last year’s catastrophic landslip is caused by ‘fallen tree from adjacent land’

The Severn Valley Railway has warned landowners with properties next to their rail line that they are liable for the trees on their property.

www.shropshirestar.com

 

[800001]

You mean beyond costs of doing the work? Theoretically possible I guess – there must be some legal precedent.

IANAL but if Network Rail had been aware of the issue for some time, I imagine they would need to explain why they had not sought a council notice or an injunction to have it dealt with (assuming they didn't seek such a remedy)

IANAL?

 

[NeilWatson]

IANAL?

I am not a lawyer

 

[Wolfie]

It gets even more opaque when tree preservation orders are involved. What if the council refuses the landowner approval to address any issues?

 

[swt_passenger]

The SVR’s landslip in 2025, caused by a fallen tree, resulted in a letter to the SVR’s neighbours:

Severn Valley Railway warns landowners about their liability after last year’s catastrophic landslip is caused by ‘fallen tree from adjacent land’

The Severn Valley Railway has warned landowners with properties next to their rail line that they are liable for the trees on their property.

www.shropshirestar.com

I think what’s interesting about the SVR incident, (noting I’ve only just skimmed the closed thread about it - and searched for ‘tree’ in that thread), is that although we seemed to agree the incident was triggered by the wing wall failure, the assumption was underwater failure, the possibility of a tree fall was never publicised at the time? I wonder how soon that was confirmed?

 

[The exile]

You mean beyond costs of doing the work? Theoretically possible I guess – there must be some legal precedent.

IANAL but if Network Rail had been aware of the issue for some time, I imagine they would need to explain why they had not sought a council notice or an injunction to have it dealt with (assuming they didn't seek such a remedy)

I would imagine that would be critical if an accident had been caused (ie if there were third party claims) and less if it is merely a case of the thing happening which NR had warned the owner of

 

[sharpener]

[deleted]

 

[Neen Sollars]

Yes I would say Occupiers Liability Acts - its not Rylands and Fletcher because growing trees is not a "non natural" use of land.

 

[Kevin51]

According to another thread, the landowner had been told several times that the tree posed a risk to the railway. As for being foreseeable, other than a tree “leaping through the air” having been struck by lightning, I should have thought that any damage a tree could do by falling / causing subsidence etc is entirely foreseeable - since “foreseeable” relates to possibility, not certainty.

I assume that there would have to be some sort of closure of the railway to remove the tree. May be that is the issue. Or may be there is tree preservation order.

 

[andy33gmail]

I should have thought that any damage a tree could do by falling / causing subsidence etc is entirely foreseeable - since “foreseeable” relates to possibility, not certainty.

Does that imply no-one can have a tree more than x metres tall within x meters of a railway in case it unexpectedly falls over?

 

[Wolfie]

According to another thread, the landowner had been told several times that the tree posed a risk to the railway. As for being foreseeable, other than a tree “leaping through the air” having been struck by lightning, I should have thought that any damage a tree could do by falling / causing subsidence etc is entirely foreseeable - since “foreseeable” relates to possibility, not certainty.

Reversing your logic does that mean that the railway should not have structures close to other properties because the potential damage they could do by falling is foreseeable?

You would doubtless argue that is ludicrous and l'd agree. But you want to give the railway special privileges by imposing arbitrary restrictions on what people can do with their own property and that is unacceptable.

 

[AlterEgo]

A tree is much more prone to falling than a structure. Nobody is arguing for special privileges; it has been esablished that it is already the law that all land owners have a duty to ensure they do not cause nuisance or spoil the enjoyment of occupiers of adjacent land. If I have a tree which is up against a boundary fence of a railway cutting then I may be responsible for any damage or worse that it causes if it falls onto the railway.

 

[Alfie1014]

You mean beyond costs of doing the work? Theoretically possible I guess – there must be some legal precedent.

IANAL but if Network Rail had been aware of the issue for some time, I imagine they would need to explain why they had not sought a council notice or an injunction to have it dealt with (assuming they didn't seek such a remedy)

The owners in this case was in fact Colchester City Council who own most of Wivenhoe woods.

 

[themiller]

Does the railway not have powers similar to the electricity companies who can prune trees which are in danger of adversely affecting their undertaking? Even the local area distribution network operators have a regime of inspection and cutting back foliage which is approaching their power lines whether on their property or not.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does the railway not have powers similar to the electricity companies who can prune trees which are in danger of adversely affecting their undertaking? Even the local area distribution network operators have a regime of inspection and cutting back foliage which is approaching their power lines whether on their property or not.

Redirect Notice

This gives details on what NR can do.

 

[Belperpete]

This gives details on what NR can do.

When the local distribution company did an inspection and announced that a tree on my property needed to be felled as it was growing too close to their overhead power line, they appointed a contractor to do the work (with my permission) and paid for it. NR seem to expect the landowner concerned to do the work and pay for it.

I was expecting to get a bill from EDF (I think it was), but the contractor who turned up to do the work said that as it was EDF that wanted the tree down, they would be paying for the work. That seems far more equitable to me.

If NR think that someone else's tree is a potential danger, then I would at least expect them to assist in its removal. Leaving it all up to the tree owner is just asking for trouble. There must be many private property owners who would struggle with such an expense out of the blue.

 

[AlterEgo]

When the local distribution company did an inspection and announced that a tree on my property needed to be felled as it was growing too close to their overhead power line, they appointed a contractor to do the work (with my permission) and paid for it. NR seem to expect the landowner concerned to do the work and pay for it.

I was expecting to get a bill from EDF (I think it was), but the contractor who turned up to do the work said that as it was EDF that wanted the tree down, they would be paying for the work. That seems far more equitable to me.

If NR think that someone else's tree is a potential danger, then I would at least expect them to assist in its removal. Leaving it all up to the tree owner is just asking for trouble. There must be many private property owners who would struggle with such an expense out of the blue.

My recollection is very hazy in this respect (I used to do some of the comms around this!) but I seem to recall NR will undertake the work at their own expense in some circumstances. I am sure someone with more current knowledge will clarify!

 

[themiller]

If I said to NR that I was going into their land to prune my trees and that it would take ‘z’ amount of time as and when I was available to carry it out, I think that they’d soon have an injunction preventing me from trespassing on operational land. In that case, I’d put the onus back on them and let them cover the costs!

 

[Wolfie]

Does the railway not have powers similar to the electricity companies who can prune trees which are in danger of adversely affecting their undertaking? Even the local area distribution network operators have a regime of inspection and cutting back foliage which is approaching their power lines whether on their property or not.

That has limitations though. I would be particularly interested at the intersection with sites of special scientific interest or similar or trees subject to preservation orders.

 

[Horizon22]

It gets even more opaque when tree preservation orders are involved. What if the council refuses the landowner approval to address any issues?

If the owner could prove that, then it would go to the council when the circumstances were explained.

 

[Belperpete]

My recollection is very hazy in this respect (I used to do some of the comms around this!) but I seem to recall NR will undertake the work at their own expense in some circumstances. I am sure someone with more current knowledge will clarify!

I would hope that NR would be more pragmatic, but the document that you posted seems to put the onus and costs squarely on the adjacent landowner.

Some other trees in my front garden needed to be felled as a separate operation that I had to pay for. As the trees were adjacent to a main road, my contractors had to arrange for a partial road closure with temporary traffic lights and temporary move of a bus stop. The cost and admin involved in felling just four trees was significant. I can well imagine similar complications and even more substantial costs for felling or pruning trees adjacent to a railway line, especially an OHLE line. If NR doesn't at least contribute to the costs, then I would not be surprised if landowners are reluctant to take on the work.

 

[The exile]

Reversing your logic does that mean that the railway should not have structures close to other properties because the potential damage they could do by falling is foreseeable?

You would doubtless argue that is ludicrous and l'd agree. But you want to give the railway special privileges by imposing arbitrary restrictions on what people can do with their own property and that is unacceptable.

No - merely stating that if you are responsible for a tree you can’t claim that it falling over could not be foreseen. If it falls over and damages someone else’s property - especially if you have been warned that it is unstable and likely to fall, then it’s your responsibility. Exactly the same applies to a tree on NR land crashing through the roof of someone’s house.

 

[Bald Rick]

I assume that there would have to be some sort of closure of the railway to remove the tree. May be that is the issue. Or may be there is tree preservation order.

Nope, neither. The owners simply didn’t want the tree felled, despite being told it was in trouble. (Ash dieback, AIUI).

When the local distribution company did an inspection and announced that a tree on my property needed to be felled as it was growing too close to their overhead power line, they appointed a contractor to do the work (with my permission)

The last three words there being key.


For clarity, NR surveys trees within and outside the boundary that can affect the line. Where the tree poses a potential risk due to it’s health and/or position, then if it is in the boundary it will be removed. If it is outside the fence then the neighbour is contacted, advising them of their responsibility and liability. (I’m sure that as taxpayers, you wouldn’t want to be on the hook for the bill of tree management for every lineside neighbour). If it gets to the point of an immediate safety issue, then (usually) emergency arrangements are invoked.

However, occasionally, a tree that has been assessed as needing attention but is not an immediate safety issue can become one in a rather short space of time.