The court clarified the extent of a local authority's duty of care regarding trees under the Local Government Act, highlighting that mere presence of a tree on private land does not negate liability if it poses public danger.

[1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in allowing the respondent's appeal and consequently setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent the defendant. The defendant is a local authority entrusted to administer the city of Kuala Lumpur pursuant to the Local Government Act 1976 (the Act).

[3] On 21 March 2013, leave to appeal was granted to the plaintiff by this Court for the determination on a sole question of law which reads as follows:

"To what extent do the powers conferred under s 101(b) and (cc) of the Local Government Act 1976 confer a duty of care on the local authority."

Background Facts

[4] On 2 October 2000 at about 5pm, the plaintiff was driving his Proton Perdana No WHJ 2676 along Jalan Duta Kuala Lumpur heading towards his office situated at Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd in Damansara Height. The plaintiff 's car was on the left lane of Jalan Duta about hundred and fifty meters away before turning into Damansara Height when all of a sudden a tree collapsed and crushed his car ("the accident"). As the result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries and is now paralysed from neck down. His car was also badly damaged.

[5] The facts further revealed that the tree was situated on a hill slope on the left side of the road. The tree was close to one hundred feet in height. It had no leaves, and when it fell it covered all the four lanes of the highway. And it is also not in dispute that the accident happened after a thunder storm.

[6] On 23 May 2002, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant for negligence and breach of statutory duties. The plaintiff contended that it was the duty of the defendant to ensure that all trees along the said road were properly trimmed or removed when they posed a danger to the public. And the defendant would be liable if it failed to carry out that duty and if such danger resulted in an accident. On the burden of proof the tree was a danger to the public and the plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, thereby satisfying and shifting the burden to the defendant to rebut otherwise.

[7] The defendant in response to the plaintiff 's action contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish the precise location of the tree that caused the injuries and damage to him. And as such the plaintiff had failed to establish that the tree had posed a danger to the public. Further it was contended that since the tree was located on a private land the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not be invoked in favour of the plaintiff.

At The High Court

[8] The learned High Court Judge (trial judge) found that the defendant was negligent and had breached its statutory duties imposed under s 101 of the Act. In his judgment the trial judge recognised the fact that the parties were unable to point out the exact location of the fallen tree but ruled that s 101 of the Act imposes a duty on the defendant to remove or trim any tree, shrub or hedge which in its opinion was likely to endanger public safety. The trial judge further held that the statutory duty of the defendant under s 101 of the Act was not limited to overseeing the trees planted by the defendant, but also extended to all trees in the city of Kuala Lumpur. It was held that the defendant is vested