B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a man to pay his neighbour $4,620 in damages after his tree fell on his neighbour's house.
Christopher James Anderson told tribunal member Meghan Stewart that Ian Darby damaged his house when a tree he was cutting came crashing down.
Darby, however, said the damage was an act of nature, and he is not responsible for it. He said he offered to refund Anderson his $1,000 insurance deductible and to fix other damage himself as a gesture of good faith, but Anderson refused.
Stewart said it was undisputed that on Jan 27, 2023, a tree on Darby’s property fell onto Anderson’s house damaging his roof, gutter and window.
“While Mr. Anderson does not specify the legal basis for his claim, I find he argues Mr. Darby negligently cut down his tree,” Stewart said. “Mr. Darby denies negligence and says a ‘gust of wind’ caused the tree to fall.”
The tribunal said Darby owed Anderson a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid trees on his own property falling and damaging Anderson’s property.
Anderson suggested that while Darby was cutting down a tree with a chainsaw, he did not take care to ensure it fell in a direction that would avoid damaging Anderson’s house.
Recounting Darby’s evidence, Stewart said he submitted he was pruning the tree on a calm day when an unexpected gust of wind caused it to lean and then fall.
Darby did not explain the steps he took to ensure the tree would otherwise fall away from Anderson’s property, the tribunal said.
Stewart also called Darby’s evidence contradictory, noting he said he was pruning the tree at the time of the gust while also saying he was 40 feet away.
Meanwhile, a statement from Darby’s stepson said when the gust picked up, Darby was in the garage. Both ran back to watch the tree hit the house. There was also Anderson’s doorbell camera evidence, which caught the tree falling.
“In the footage, there appears to be a slight breeze rustling the branches of other background trees as well as a tarp covering a boat,” Stewart said. “However, there is no evidence of a wind strong enough to fell a tree the size of the one that comes down.”
The tribunal stated photos in evidence showed a clean-cut tree stump rather than an uprooted trunk.
Darby said the part of the tree left in the ground was later cut, which is the reason for the clean cut.
“Even if this is the case, it does not explain how the tree would have fallen without a strong wind, which I find from the doorbell camera footage was absent,” Stewart said.
“I find the evidence is most consistent with Mr. Darby having cut down the tree and miscalculating the direction of the fall,” Stewart ruled. “So, I find Mr. Darby’s behaviour fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent neighbour pruning or cutting their tree.”
