Can you sue if a tree falls on your car?

Case of JS v X Metropolitan Borough Council.

The matter came before District Judge McMurtry on 28th July 2025 at X County Court.

The Claimant was the owner of a Volkswagen Passat Highline. A Willow Tree fell onto his vehicle when it was parked up, causing damage which cost between 3 and 5 thousand pounds to repair.

Our client was the relevant council authority, and it was accepted that it owed the public a duty to maintain the road on which the car was situated, pursuant to section 41 of Highways Act 1980. An alternative claim was raised alleging common law negligence on the part of the council.

It was alleged that the council breached this obligation and/or it’s the duty of care, on 27th December 2023, when the tree fell causing the damage.  The claim form alleged that local residents had previously complained about the state of the tree. However, as there was no evidence of this, this was denied, and the claimant was put to proof.

At trial the claimant abandoned any claim that this was a s41 case at the outset and advanced the claim in negligence only. However, the judge whilst acknowledging that the claimant was honest found that he was mistaken in many aspects of the evidence. The claimant had failed to show that the damage had been caused by any want of care on the defendant’s part, and the judge concluded that the cause of the damage was in fact sheer bad luck/Act of God. The judge noted that, contrary to the claimant’s witness evidence, the area had in fact been subject to a named storm at the relevant time, with gusts of up to 45mph and a mini tornado not too far away. In this, he was greatly assisted by the defendant’s witness. Mr P provided very clear and measured evidence, as to how willow trees behave in strong winds, and the judge was impressed by his willingness to make reasonable concessions as to the thoroughness of the tree management policy. The judge rejected the claimant’s assertion that a third party had complained about the state of the tree before the incident, as there was no evidence from that alleged complainant. Because the claimant had failed to prove negligence on the defendant’s part, he deemed it unnecessary to consider whether the inspection regime was reasonable, but he did remark that he thought the defendant’s policy of only recording which trees needed maintenance and passing no comment on unremarkable trees to be perfectly reasonable considering the size of the tree stock. He added that the policy of only felling trees as an absolute last resort struck a fair balance between nature and safety. Nevertheless, the judge suggested some lessons for future council policy regarding tree management could be learned. He commented that it would have been better if the risk assessment required inspectors to consider the species of a tree among the other variables, given the factual evidence that willow is less robust than some other species. However, this did not significantly undermine the reasonableness of the inspection that had been carried out on 11 June 2023.

The outcome was judgment for the defendant with no order for costs.

Forbes comment:

Congratulations to Tim Smith (Partner Insurance) with assistance from Jessica Bevan (Paralegal). Anything can happen at trial, but a party’s prospects of a successful outcome are certainly enhanced by careful forensic preparation especially of supportive witness evidence. In this case there was a stark contrast with other side not providing nearly enough of their own evidence to sway matters in their favour. Choosing talented counsel to represent you is also important. Huge thanks should also go to the council’s witness Mr. P. He was assured and knowledgeable in the witness box and his willingness to make reasonable concessions notably swayed the Judges opinion of the council’s case.