Under section 14, there must be evidence of physical damage to the root system or trunk. In this case, there was evidence of damage to the trunk in that the bark had been removed, presumably by its having taken a hit from a log being pulled by a cat. The employer argues that only the bark was removed and that since the bark does not hold up a tree, that damage should not be considered to fall within the definition. However, the definition does not distinguish between bark or that portion of the tree underneath the bark. It simply looks for damage to the trunk of a tree as evidence of damage or deterioration to the tree.
Damage removing the bark is damage to the trunk of the tree, suggesting damage to the tree.
In addition, dirt had been removed from the base of the tree. There is no evidence that the root system had as yet been damaged by that removal of dirt. However, when the tree was hit by the log, it is possible that the root system could have been loosened. As the employer points out, it is also possible that by taking that hit without falling down the structural integrity of the tree was established. Obviously, there is no way of knowing which is true.