Tree Duty of Care for Municipalities: Complete Liability Guide

Fault-based liability, not strict liability

Dutch tree liability falls under Article 6:162 of the Civil Code (tort law), not strict liability. This means the claimant must prove that the municipality acted negligently.

Courts use these four factors to determine whether a municipality fulfilled its duty of care:

1. Probability of harm: How likely was it that someone would be injured?
2. Severity of consequences: What damage could realistically occur?
3. Burden of prevention: How difficult or costly were preventive measures?
4. Foreseeability: Could the danger be detected through reasonable inspection?

The Handboek Bomen from Norminstituut Bomen serves as the normative framework in court proceedings. Municipalities that follow this handbook in their specifications and inspection protocols significantly strengthen their legal position.

When is a municipality liable and when not

When claims arise, the first question is: Can you prove you fulfilled your duty of care? Without registration, you cannot prove this. Complete documentation is not bureaucratic burden, but your best legal defense.

For each tree, you record when the inspection took place (date and season, as this affects visibility of defects), where exactly (specific location with unique identifier), by whom (name and expertise of inspector), and what methodology was applied. Additionally, you record the findings (identified defects and risk status), the measures taken or recommended, the urgency (immediate, within one month, within one year, or within three years), and finally the execution date as proof that prescribed work was actually completed.

How crucial good documentation is became clear at Court Oost-Brabant in 2020. The municipality was held liable because 'it could not be specified when, how, and by whom controls were carried out.' The inspection reports from gardeners were missing, leaving unclear what was observed during inspections. Make sure this doesn't happen to your municipality.

There is no legally mandated inspection frequency, but case law and the Stadsbomen Vademecum 3A provide clear expectations. Young trees up to fifteen years are typically inspected every two years. Mature trees from sixteen years onward require four-yearly inspections. Attention trees and locations with heightened duty of care — think school routes, playgrounds, and busy pedestrian zones — require annual inspection. In special situations, such as canal trees along the Oudegracht in Utrecht, even six-monthly inspection may be necessary.

Inspections must be carried out by qualified professionals. The Groenkeur BVC certification (Tree Safety Inspector) is the recognized Dutch standard, valid for five years with approximately 2,000 certified professionals nationwide. This certification is recognized by the insurance industry and is often required in municipal tenders. Additionally, the European certifications ETW (European Tree Worker) for execution work and ETT (European Tree Technician) for the higher advisory level exist.

Compliance costs less than liability

The Zutphen case showed: what you cannot prove does not count. Digital tree files provide the evidence that paper processes cannot deliver. During an incident, you can demonstrate within minutes when the tree was last inspected, what the findings were, what measures were taken, and by whom.

Modern tree management software automatically builds an audit trail: every inspection, every decision, every mutation is documented with date, time, and executor. Photos are directly linked to the correct tree and inspection, giving you visual evidence of condition at specific moments. Risk classifications are recorded with justification — not just the classification, but also the reason why. Automatic reminders ensure you never miss an inspection again. And when claims arise, you can directly export reports for insurers without spending hours searching through archives.