The most important rule: a storm does not automatically exempt from liability
From a legal perspective, a storm is not a responsible person, but a factual circumstance. Therefore, according to R. Joskaudienė, in each case, five questions must be answered:
Read more The company disappeared leaving a six-figure debt
1. Who owned or managed the tree, building, advertising stand, or other structure?
2. Who was responsible for maintaining that object?
3. Was the maintenance duty properly carried out?
4. Was the damage caused exclusively by an unusually strong natural disaster, or did a rotten tree, an untidy roof, or a poorly secured structure contribute to it?
5. Did the injured person’s own behavior not contribute to the occurrence or increase of the damage?
Article 6.263 of the Civil Code establishes the general duty to act so that one’s actions or inactions do not cause harm to another person. Liability may also arise from inaction – for example, failing to remove an obviously dangerous tree for a long time or not reinforcing a damaged roof.
If a tree fell, who is responsible?
1. The tree grew on a private plot
Article 27(1)(1) of the Law on Greenery obliges owners and managers of greenery and plants to protect, properly maintain, and manage them.
Therefore, according to the lawyer, the owner of a private plot may be liable if the tree:
- was obviously rotten, dried out, or heavily leaning;
- had broken, dangerous branches;
- had previously been damaged by storms or construction work;
- had received warnings from neighbors or specialists due to its danger;
- but the owner took no action.
“In such a case, the mere statement ‘the tree was knocked down by the wind’ may not be enough. It will be necessary to assess whether a diligent owner could and should have noticed and removed the dangers.
However, if the tree was healthy, properly maintained, and fell only due to an exceptional, objectively unpredictable natural disaster, the owner may be exempt from liability due to force majeure. This must be proven in each case, not just declared,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
2. The tree grew on municipal territory
Municipalities organize and carry out the protection, maintenance, management, and condition monitoring of trees in their greenery areas. They also organize the maintenance of greenery in local public road strips and other areas specified by law.
If the municipality did not fulfill the duty established by legal acts, damage may be compensated from the municipal budget under Article 6.271 of the Civil Code. It is not necessary to prove the fault of a specific employee, but it is necessary to establish:
- a specific unlawful action or inaction;
- actual damage incurred;
- a causal link between the inaction and the damage.
“The mere fact that the tree grew in the city territory does not automatically mean that the municipality must pay. The municipality is not the insurer of all trees growing in its territory. First, it is necessary to determine the land status, the tree manager, and specific maintenance duties,” said R. Joskaudienė.
3. The tree grew in an apartment building yard
This is usually the most complicated situation.
According to the lawyer, the responsible party may be:
- the municipality;
- the trustee of state land;
- the community;
- the apartment building administrator;
- the owners of the premises;
- the company maintaining the territory under contract.
“The answer depends on whether a land plot has been formed next to the apartment building, who owns it, who actually manages the territory, and what specific municipal territory management rules and administrative documents stipulate.
Therefore, it is incorrect to immediately state that only the administrator or only the municipality is responsible for every tree fallen in the apartment building yard. When several subjects violate maintenance duties, joint liability may also apply,” the lawyer indicated.
4. The tree blocked a street or road
Article 11(7) of the Law on Safe Traffic on Roads obliges the road owner or manager to:
- ensure that the road is suitable for vehicle and pedestrian traffic;
- maintain the road and its infrastructure;
- immediately remove dangerous traffic obstacles;
- and if immediate removal is impossible – properly mark the dangerous spot.
“Damage caused by failure to fulfill these duties may be compensated by the road owner or manager. However, here too, liability is not automatic: if the tree fell a few minutes ago and the responsible subject objectively could not yet know about the obstacle or remove it, real response possibilities must be assessed,” said R. Joskaudienė.
If the storm blew off a roof, advertising stand, or other structure
When damage is caused not by a tree but by a part of a building or other structure – roof covering, sheet metal, chimney, facade element, balcony part, advertising stand, scaffolding, or other device – Article 6.266 of the Civil Code is relevant.
“According to it, damage caused by the collapse or defects of buildings, structures, devices, or other constructions must be compensated by the owner or manager of the object, unless they prove circumstances excluding liability established by law.
This is a stricter liability, essentially independent of fault. For example, if sheet metal torn off from a poorly maintained roof damaged a neighbor’s car, it is not enough for the owner of the structure to say ‘the wind was strong.’ It must be substantiated that the structure was technically sound, properly maintained, and the consequence could not reasonably be foreseen and avoided,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
According to her, it is important that a tree is not a structure by itself, so Article 6.266 of the Civil Code generally does not apply in cases of damage caused by trees. In the case of a tree, the owner’s or manager’s maintenance duty, general tort liability, and, when the defendant is a municipality, public liability rules are assessed.
Is today’s storm force majeure?
Article 6.253 of the Civil Code defines force majeure as unavoidable, uncontrollable, and irremovable circumstances that were not and could not have been foreseen.
“But it is legally important to understand one thing:
The meteorological term ‘natural phenomenon’ and the legal concept ‘force majeure’ are not identical,” emphasized the lawyer.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania in civil case No. 3K-3-381/2012 clarified that wind cannot be considered force majeure by itself. It can be recognized as force majeure only when its strength or scale is so unusual and uncharacteristic for a specific area that a reasonable, diligent person could not have foreseen and prepared for such an event.
Therefore, even officially recognized storm wind does not automatically eliminate liability. The following will be assessed:
- what the wind speed was exactly at the event location and time;
- the condition of the tree or structure;
- whether prior warnings were received;
- whether the owner or manager had the opportunity to take preventive measures;
- whether the damage would have been caused by a properly maintained object.
“Uprooting a healthy tree during an exceptionally strong wind and breaking a rotten tree during a forecasted storm are not legally the same,” emphasized R. Joskaudienė.
What does court practice say?
Supreme Court of Lithuania case No. 3K-3-21/2012
“A tree fell on a car in an apartment building yard. The municipality was informed about the leaning and possibly dangerous tree well before the event, a permit to cut it down was issued, but no real actions were taken.
The court found that both the municipality, which did not control the fulfillment of its duties, and the administrator, who had assumed tree maintenance duties, did not act as required. Both subjects were held jointly liable.
Read more Prime Minister: the storm exposed long-standing problems
Practical conclusion: previous written reports from residents about a dangerous tree can become one of the most important pieces of evidence justifying liability,” commented R. Joskaudienė.
2025 case No. e2A-302-886/2025
A tree growing in an apartment building yard fell on a car. The defendants claimed that the damage was caused by a storm during which the wind speed reached 19.6 m/s.
However, photos and videos showed that the tree broke at the roots, its trunk core was darkened, rotten, and crumbling. The court decided that the wind was not the main cause of the tree breaking and upheld the decision to jointly order the municipality and the apartment building administrator to pay 3,582.07 EUR in damages.
The car was parked partly on the lawn, but the court found that the tree would have damaged it due to its length even if the car had been parked in a permitted place. Thus, the parking violation itself had no causal link to the damage.
Can the damage be reduced due to the injured party’s own behavior?
According to the lawyer, yes, but not automatically.
Article 6.282 of the Civil Code provides that if the injured party’s gross negligence contributed to the occurrence or increase of the damage, compensation may be reduced or the claim dismissed.
For example, it may be assessed whether the person:
- left the car directly under a clearly leaning and fenced tree;
- ignored a specific prohibition to enter a dangerous area;
- knowingly left property in a dangerous place despite knowing about a collapsing roof or facade;
- did not take reasonable measures to reduce further damage after the event.
“However, a general warning about a storm or simply parking the car in a prohibited place does not mean the right to compensation is lost. It must be proven that such behavior actually contributed to the damage,” said R. Joskaudienė.
The first hour after the event can determine the whole case
1. First, ensure safety
If a tree or structure poses a danger to people, blocks the roadway, leans on a building or power lines – call 112.
“Do not approach or touch broken power lines. Firefighters also emphasize that trees fallen on power lines are removed only after ensuring the line poses no danger,” advised R. Joskaudienė.
2. Photograph and film before removing the tree
Capture:
- the overall scene;
- the exact tree growth point;
- the trunk break location;
- roots and stump;
- rot, cavities, cracks;
- damaged car or building;
- road signs and car parking place;
- surrounding trees and structures;
- parts of structures left on the ground.
“Photos of the damaged car alone may not be enough. In a dispute, the condition of the tree trunk, roots, or torn structure may become crucial,” said R. Joskaudienė.
3. Write down the exact time and address
Save:
- the exact date and time of the event;
- the location address;
- witness contacts;
- information from the 112 call;
- police or firefighter registration number;
- video camera recordings.
According to the lawyer, video recordings should be requested immediately as they are often stored only for a limited time.
4. Inform the insurer immediately
“If the car is insured with KASKO and the house or other property with property insurance, report the event according to the insurance contract procedure.
Do not carry out repairs or discard damaged parts before the insurer’s inspection, except in cases of urgent safety or damage mitigation work. Document such work thoroughly.
After the insurer pays the compensation, they may have the right to recover the paid amount from the person responsible for the damage. Therefore, without consulting the insurer, do not sign statements that ‘you have no claims against anyone.’ Such a refusal may complicate the insurer’s right to claim and affect the insurance payment,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
5. Identify the appropriate defendant
It is necessary to find out:
- who owns the land plot;
- who manages the tree or structure;
- who maintains the territory;
- whether a maintenance contract has been concluded;
- whether the territory is assigned to the apartment building;
- who is the road or street manager.
“A person who submits a claim to the wrong subject may lose a lot of time, and during the dispute, defendants often try to shift responsibility to each other,” explained the lawyer.
6. Request to preserve maintenance documents
Request in writing from the municipality, administrator, or other manager to preserve and provide:
- tree inventory data;
- condition assessment documents;
- inspection reports;
- resident complaints and reports;
- tree pruning or cutting permits;
- territory maintenance contracts;
- orders to contractors;
- information about previous work.
7. Collect official meteorological data
“In a dispute, it may be important not just the general report that ‘there was a storm in Lithuania,’ but precise data from the Lithuanian Hydrometeorological Service about wind direction and speed in a specific region and at a specific time,” emphasized R. Joskaudienė.
8. Justify the full amount of damage
Article 6.249 of the Civil Code allows claiming not only the main property repair costs. Depending on circumstances, damage may include:
- car or building repair costs;
- decrease in property value;
- transportation and storage costs;
- temporary roof covering or other emergency work;
- safe removal costs of the tree or structure;
- property appraisal and expert examination costs;
- reasonable expenses to reduce damage;
- proven lost income.
The amount of damage can be based on estimates, invoices, property appraisal documents, expert opinions, photos, and other admissible evidence.
If the insurer compensated only part of the damage, the responsible person may be required to pay the unpaid part, including the insurance deductible, if their civil liability conditions are established.
Four most common myths
“There was a storm, so no one is responsible.”
“Not true. The storm must meet all force majeure conditions, and improper maintenance of a tree or structure may not eliminate liability,” emphasized the lawyer.
“If the tree grew in the city, the municipality always pays.”
Not true. According to R. Joskaudienė, it is necessary to determine the landowner, manager, and the subject entrusted with specific maintenance.
“The car was parked in a prohibited place, so compensation is not due.”
Not necessarily. According to the lawyer, a causal link between improper parking and the occurrence or increase of damage must be proven.
“The insurance paid the money, so evidence is no longer important.”
Not true. According to R. Joskaudienė, the insurer may file a claim against the responsible person, and the insured must provide the necessary information and evidence to them.
Key conclusion
In cases of damage caused by storms, usually the winner is not the one who loudly claims to be injured, but the one who collects evidence in time.
Liability, according to the lawyer, depends not only on wind strength but also on:
- whose duty it was to maintain the object;
- what its condition was before the storm;
- whether the danger was known;
- whether preventive actions could be taken;
- and whether failure to fulfill duties actually contributed to the damage.
“If near your home today there are still leaning, broken, or dangerous trees, damaged roofs or structures, report them in writing, attach photos, specify the exact location, and ask to register the report. Such a document can not only help prove liability later but also prevent another accident,” said R. Joskaudienė.
Read more Dmitrijus Kiseliovas fired from the show «Vesti nedeli»
