The Neighbour's Tree and the Falling Branch
Mr. Patel owns a large oak tree near the boundary with his neighbour, Ms. Okafor. The tree has a visible crack in a major branch, which overhangs Ms. Okafor's garden. Ms. Okafor has repeatedly asked Mr. Patel to prune the branch, but he has ignored her requests, saying the tree is healthy. One stormy night, the branch breaks and falls onto Ms. Okafor's greenhouse, destroying it. The greenhouse was used to grow rare orchids, which Ms. Okafor sold for $20,000 per year. She also spent $5,000 on repairs. Ms. Okafor sues Mr. Patel in negligence and nuisance. Mr. Patel argues that the storm was an act of God and that he had no duty to inspect the tree.
1. Analyze Mr. Patel's liability in negligence for the damage caused by the falling branch.
Read the worked answer
Mr. Patel likely owes a duty of care to Ms. Okafor as an occupier of neighbouring land. Under the principle in Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645, an occupier who knows or ought to know of a danger on his land that threatens a neighbour must take reasonable steps to abate it. The visible crack and Ms. Okafor's repeated requests gave Mr. Patel actual knowledge of the risk. His failure to prune or inspect the tree was a breach of duty. The storm may be an act of God, but it was foreseeable that a cracked branch could fall in high winds. The damage to the greenhouse was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. The fact that the tree was 'healthy' is irrelevant because the crack was visible. Mr. Patel's argument that he had no duty to inspect fails because he had been alerted. Therefore, Mr. Patel is liable in negligence for the damage to the greenhouse. However, the rare orchids may raise issues of remoteness; the loss of the orchids themselves is property damage, but the lost profits from selling them are economic loss. Under negligence, pure economic loss is generally not recoverable, but here the lost profits are consequential upon the physical damage to the greenhouse and the orchids. If the orchids were destroyed, their value is recoverable as property damage. The $20,000 per year is future loss; Ms. Okafor can claim for the loss of the orchids and the greenhouse, but the lost profits may be limited to the period until she could reasonably replace them.
2. Consider whether Ms. Okafor can also succeed in nuisance and what remedies might be available.
Read the worked answer
Ms. Okafor may also succeed in nuisance. A nuisance can arise from a danger on land that causes damage to a neighbour's property. The branch overhanging her garden was an encroachment, and its fall caused physical damage. In nuisance, the defendant is liable if the interference is unreasonable and causes damage. Mr. Patel's failure to abate the known danger made the interference unreasonable. The storm does not necessarily absolve him because the danger was pre-existing. However, nuisance usually requires a continuing state of affairs; a one-off event may be more suited to negligence. But where the damage results from a known danger, nuisance can apply. Remedies in nuisance include damages and an injunction. Ms. Okafor could seek an injunction to require Mr. Patel to remove the remaining tree or prune it, but since the branch has fallen, an injunction may be unnecessary. She can claim damages for the damage to the greenhouse and the orchids. The measure of damages in nuisance is the diminution in value of the property or the cost of repair, whichever is less. Here, the repair cost is $5,000, and the value of the orchids is also recoverable. The lost profits from the orchids may be recoverable as consequential loss if they were foreseeable. However, the same issues of remoteness apply. Overall, Ms. Okafor is likely to succeed in both negligence and nuisance, but she cannot recover double damages. She should elect the more advantageous claim.