Watch Those Trees!

As we mentioned recently, Ron and I were involved in a trial that kept us busy and away from blogging. I’m reading all of the cases we missed and a small claims case from the Indiana Court of Appeals jumped out at me. The Court’s holding in Scheckel v. NLI, Inc., ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 02A04-1010-SC-645, puts many of Indiana’s landowners on notice that they should check their trees, from time to time.

In this case, Scheckel owned two adjacent lots in Fort Wayne, Indiana. A chain link fence separates the properties and a walkway on one property runs parallel to and within five feet of the fence. A tree was growing near the fence towards the front of the property without the walkway, but did not touch the fence.

Scheckel sold the property with the tree to NLI. Over the course of time, the tree grew into the fence and its roots grew under the walkway, damaging both the fence and the walkway. The gate in the fence was rendered unusable, and the walkway cracked and buckled. Scheckel filed a small claims action against NLI, but the trial corut granted judgment to NLI after a bench trial on the grounds that the size and placement of the tree caused the damage to the fence and walkway and that a land owner is not liable for harm caused outside his land by a natural condition of the land. Shceckel appealed.

On appeal, the Court described the natural condition rule, but held that it should not apply to modern urban and residential living.

[P]lacing a duty on the landowner to inspect his or her property and take reasonable precautions against dangerous natural conditions is not an undue burden. Property lots in urban or residential settings are much smaller in size–putting neighboring landowners much closer in proximity–and thus, the burden of time and money to inspect and secure trees on those properties is relatively minor compared to the potential damage that could result from a defective tree. As such, we hold that an urban or residential landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect neighbors from the risk of personal injury or property damage caused by a tree growing upon the landowner’s property.

The fact that the issue was over the placement and size of the tree, rather than its health, did not matter.

To be sure, prior decisions finding an exception to the natural condition rule of the Restatement have involved injuries caused by unhealthy or dead trees falling onto an adjoining property, and the damage in the present case results from a healthy tree growing into an adjoining property; however, we see no meaningful difference between the two situations. Indeed, it may be difficult to determine whether a tree is decayed to such an extent that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm to an adjoining property owner, but a tree upon one’s property that is growing into a structure on an adjoining property is readily observable. Similarly, a decayed tree falling into a structure on adjoining property may occur instantaneously and without warning, but a tree growing into such structure occurs over an extended period of time.

Thus, NLI owed Sheckel a duty and breached that duty.

The Court’s decision appears to break new ground in Indiana and reminds all in residential or urban areas to check our trees from time to time – and to be careful where you plant them.

Lesson:

    An urban or residential landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect neighbors from the risk of personal injury or property damage caused by a tree growing upon the landowner’s property
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
This entry was posted in Property Rights and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>