Suppose there are two plots of land, one owned by Alice and one owned by Bob. Bob's property has a fence around it, which is also owned by Bob. Alice's property has some trees, which are fully on Alice's side. However, lightning strikes and brings one tree down. This makes it fall over and break part of Bob's fence. In what kinds of jurisdictions is Alice liable for this?
The short answer
Outside a few narrow, mostly academic possibilities, Alice would not be liable when a healthy tree is toppled by lightning and damages Bob’s fence. In almost every modern system—common‑law and civil‑law alike—the combination of a healthy tree and a truly unforeseeable, irresistible natural event (“an act of God” or force majeure) breaks the chain of legal causation or supplies Alice with a complete defence.
Below is a map of how the major families of legal systems treat the problem and where (in theory) Alice might still face liability.
1. Fault‑based common‑law jurisdictions
(England & Wales, nearly all U.S. states, Canada, Australia, etc.)
| Core rule | Practical result for Alice |
|---|---|
| A land‑owner owes only a duty of reasonable care to inspect and maintain trees. Liability arises only if the owner knew or should have known the tree was dangerous and failed to act. A sudden act of nature is a complete defence (“act‑of‑God doctrine”). | Because the tree was healthy and the damage was caused by lightning, Alice has no fault; Bob must claim on his own insurance. (Merchants Insurance Group, forthepeople.com) |
When could she be liable here? If the tree had been visibly diseased, leaning, or previously struck (i.e., Alice had notice of a hazard) courts apply ordinary negligence. Some states spell this out explicitly—e.g., the Restatement illustration where a lightning‑killed tree is left standing for a year and then falls (koleyjessen.com).
2. Strict‑liability civil‑code jurisdictions
(France, Québec, Spain, pre‑1996 Louisiana, etc.)
2 a. Liability for “things in one’s custody”
Article 1242 §1 of the French Code (mirrored in many civilian systems) and its Louisiana analogue (old C.C. art. 2317) impose objective liability for damage caused by a “thing” one guards—even without personal fault. Louisiana’s Loescher v. Parr applied that idea to diseased trees. (Justia Law)
2 b. The escape hatch: force majeure
The same civil codes also say that a guardian is exonerated if the damage is due to an event that is (i) external, (ii) unforeseeable, and (iii) irresistible—the civilian version of an act of God. Lightning satisfies all three criteria in normal conditions, so the owner escapes liability. (Wikipedia)
| Scenario | Healthy tree ‑ lightning | Diseased tree ‑ ordinary wind |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Owner not liable (force majeure) | Owner usually liable (defect created an unreasonable risk and wind was foreseeable) |
Bottom line: even the “strict” civilian systems still free Alice when the only cause is lightning.
3. Exceptional regimes that could, in theory, trap Alice
- Statutory no‑fault compensation schemes – A few jurisdictions experiment with laws that spread losses from natural hazards without regard to fault (e.g., some Scandinavian environmental‑risk statutes). They are rare and usually capped by government funds, not true tort liability.
- Contractual or insurance subrogation – Alice could be pulled in only if her own insurer indemnifies Bob and then seeks reimbursement, but the insurer would still have to prove negligence or the absence of a force‑majeure defence under the governing law.
4. Practical takeaway
- In mainstream common‑law or civil‑law jurisdictions, a healthy tree felled by lightning is classified as an “act of God” / force majeure event.
- Liability shifts only when the owner’s fault (notice of decay, improper felling, etc.) contributes to the damage.
- Truly strict regimes with no force‑majeure escape are practically non‑existent; where strict liability exists, the same codes also enshrine the force‑majeure defence.
So, unless Alice ignored warning signs that the tree was dangerous before the storm, she can sleep soundly in almost any legal system.
No comments:
Post a Comment