While pushing over a tree, a falling piece struck the plaintiff, severing his back
The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the Town of Gibsons was not liable for the injuries sustained by a man while pushing over a tree in a public park.
The case arose from a 2012 incident in which the appellant, then 17 years old, entered a forested area of White Tower Park with friends. While attempting to knock over a tree, part of it broke off and struck him, severing his cervical spine. As a result, he has tetraplegia. He sued the Town of Gibsons, arguing that it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of park users.
The trial judge dismissed the claim, concluding that Gibsons met its duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act (OLA) by complying with the Wildlife Danger Tree Assessor’s Course (WDTAC) standard, which sets criteria for assessing hazardous trees. The judge found no breach of the standard, noting that Gibsons was not required to inspect areas outside maintained trails where the accident occurred.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by treating the WDTAC standard as exhaustive of Gibsons’ duty under the OLA. He contended that the town should have taken additional measures, such as posting warning signs or restricting access to the area. However, the appeal court found that at trial, the appellant had relied on the WDTAC Standard to define the standard of care, and his argument on appeal was a new issue requiring leave, which the court denied.
The appeal court also rejected claims that the trial judge had misinterpreted expert evidence on hazardous tree management. It upheld the conclusion that the area where the accident occurred was classified as very low risk, meaning no further assessment was required.
The appellant further alleged several procedural errors during the trial, including excluding expert evidence and improper handling of witness testimony. The appeal court found no errors that materially affected the outcome.
The court declined to address the appellant’s argument regarding causation, stating it was unnecessary given the finding that Gibsons had not breached its duty of care. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal.
