WHAT DID THE GOVERNMENT KNOW, AND WHEN DID IT KNOW IT?

One of the enduring lines from the endless (or so it seemed at the time) Watergate investigation was Howard Baker’s famous question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” On the answer to that question turned the culpability of the President for the high crimes and misdemeanors of his minions. It still does, despite the fact that we now know that the Watergate investigation timetable was a rocket ship compared to Whitewater-Lewinsky, Valerie Plame, Benghazi–Fast and Furious–IRS, January 6th, E. Jean Carroll, and the list goes on…

It’s a great question. Many plaintiffs have discovered that possessing or lacking the answer to it often is the difference between winning and losing a tort action.

We talked about strict liability yesterday, but that’s not generally the way we do things. Were it otherwise, commerce and society would screech to a halt, because any act — regardless of how responsibly it was performed — could lead to liability and financial ruin.

Consider today’s case. A tree branch cracked and settled so far down the tree that it dangled dangerously low over a road. Linda hit it, damaging her car. No one would disagree that the branch should not have been there. Nevertheless, the harm it caused did not mean Linda could pick the State of Ohio’s pocket for repairs itself unless the State had a duty to the motoring public which it failed to discharge.

Shouldn’t the Ohio Department of Transportation have known about the danger? Should it not have corrected the defect before Linda happened along? Shouldn’t those highway workers do something to justify their paychecks? That all depends on the State’s knowledge of the defect. Or, as the late Sen. Howard Baker might have put it, “What did ODOT know, and when did it know it?”

Coleman v. Ohio DOT, 2009-Ohio-6887 (Ct. Claims, Aug, 25, 2009), 2009 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 3. One February day, Linda Coleman was driving along a state highway a half mile outside of the village of Westville, Ohio, when her 2004 Honda Accord hit a very low tree branch overhanging the road. The impact broke the windshield and damaged the right side of her car.

Linda sued ODOT, theorizing that the damage to her car was proximately caused by ODOT’s negligence in failing to maintain the roadway free of hazardous conditions. She sought a paltry $745.01, the cost of fixing her Honda.

ODOT denied liability, contending that none of its employees or agents had any knowledge of the hazardous overhanging tree limb prior to Linda’s collision with it. ODOT denied receiving any reports about the limb prior to the accident from anyone. ODOT did receive a report after Linda struck the tree, and responded by dispatching two ODOT workers to remove the tree limb the same day Linda hit it. ODOT argued that the facts suggested that “it is likely the tree limb existed for only a short time before the incident.”

ODOT related that its manager for that county inspected all state roadways n the county at least twice a month. Apparently, no overhanging tree condition was discovered at Milepost 2.50 on State Route 560 the last time that section of the roadway was inspected.

Held: ODOT had no liability to Linda.

To be sure, ODOT has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the motoring public. However, the state agency is not an insurer of the safety of its highways. In order to prove a breach of ODOT’s duty to maintain the highways, Linda would have had to prove that ODOT had actual or constructive notice of the precise condition or defect alleged to have caused the accident. ODOT would only be liable for a roadway condition of which it had notice but failed to take reasonable steps to correct.

In order to recover on a claim of this type, the Court said, Linda had to show either that ODOT had actual or constructive notice of the low-hanging tree limb and failed to respond in a reasonable time or responded in a negligent manner, or that ODOT, in a general sense, maintains its highways negligently. For constructive notice to be proven, Linda would have had to show that sufficient time had passed after the dangerous nature of the tree limb came into being so that, under the circumstances, ODOT should have learned of its existence.

The court hearing the case may not infer that ODOT knew, unless Linda presented evidence of when the defective limb first appeared to be too low over the roadway. Here, Linda had no proof that ODOT had any notice, either actual or constructive, of the damage-causing tree limb.

Generally, to prove negligence, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant owed her a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused her injuries. She must also show she suffered a loss, and that this loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Linda had no evidence that her injury was proximately caused by ODOT’s negligence because she could not show when the dangerous condition came into being. Therefore, she was unable to show that the damage-causing object was connected to any conduct under ODOT’s control, or to any ODOT negligence.

– Tom Root

STRICTLY SPEAKING

Strict liability statutes, also known as “liability without fault,” occupy the blameless end of the “mens rea” spectrum. Our traditional notions of fair play lead us to believe that people should not be held to blame for injury unless they are somehow at fault, whether negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, or acting with intent to bring about the harm they cause.

But at common law, some acts were considered to be so inherently dangerous – the classic case was a lion that escaped from a keeper of exotic animals – that courts let the res ipse loquitur, the “thing speak for itself,” and found the owner liable for whatever mayhem ensued from a force that had once been under the owner’s control. Negligence need not be shown.

Remember the radioactive spider that bit Peter Parker and made him super-powered Spiderman? Peter (or maybe Spidey) could have sued the lab that let the spider escape. Everyone knows that a radioactive spider is an inherently dangerous instrumentality, and whoever the last guy was to have the arachnid in captivity had better be prepared to pay big, regardless of whether he was at fault or not.

But should strict liability extend to dogs? Speaking as the owner/service human of a 40-lb. canine who is a terror to woodchucks but a marshmallow around humans, I don’t really see why they should. Nevertheless, many states have dog bite statutes that make owners strictly liable for their canines’ misdeeds, regardless of fault. To be sure, some of the statutes are hybrids, making the owner absolutely liable except for all the cases in which he or she is not. In today’s case, the statute at issue made an owner strictly liable for his or her dog’s bite, unless the person so bitten was engaged in criminal trespass or other criminal conduct, was tormenting or teasing or harassing the dog, or (in the case of my dog) engaged in the status crime of being a woodchuck. So the owner is absolutely liable… sort of.

Today’s case is the kind of tree law/neighbor law mashup that you have come to rely on us to deliver. The trial court here made the tree trimmer into a trespasser, despite the obvious fact that the power company had every right to enter its easement to prune back trees. The Court of Appeals could not swallow that but instead suggested that while not a trespasser, the employee owed the dog’s owner notice that he was entering the premises, so the owner had the chance to control his dog.

With certain Supreme Court justices disappointing activists everywhere by deciding cases according to their perception of the law rather than the politics (you can tell I’m a fan of the rule of law, whether I agree with the political effects or not), there will be a lot of talk over the next few months about “judge-made law.” Do you want to see judge-made law? Just look at the gyrations of the trial and appellate court in the case below.

The judges here clearly could not accept that the dog’s owner should have to pay when the dog had been contained in a yard behind a fence and a “no trespassing” sign. A stranger—regardless of intention and right—barged in anyway and complained because the dog chased him. And they found a way to bend the law to suit their sense of propriety.

Collins v. Bergman, 2010-Ohio-6213 (Ct.App. Montgomery Co., Dec. 17, 2010), 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 5233, 2010 WL 5274. Jason Collins worked for Nelson Tree Service, which was under contract with the power company to remove trees that were too close to utility poles and lines. Jason’s job was to go from house to house inspecting all trees encroaching Dayton Power & Light utility lines and poles, so any trees too close could be trimmed back at a later time.

When Jason reached Jeff Bergman’s house, there was no answer when he knocked on the door. Jason left a courtesy card on the door, notifying Jeff that a tree trimming would occur in the future. Jason then went around the back of the house to count the trees. He could hear a dog barking. The dog was a Labrador-Rottweiler mix named Taz. Jason didn’t know Taz had a dog door giving him unfettered access to the back yard.

Jason could see that Jeff and his neighbor had built 6-foot privacy fences, which made it impossible for the power company to check its easement. Thinking that Taz was inside the house, Jason entered the fenced-in backyard through a gate marked “no trespassing.”

Taz was not inside. As Jason fled the barking dog, the cantankerous canine planted his fretwork in Jason’s pant leg. Jason tried to climb the privacy fence, but fell back, injuring his shoulder.

Jason sued Jeff under Ohio’s dog bite statute, O.R.C. § 955.28. Jeff filed for summary judgment. At the time, that statute provided that “the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an individual who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property… or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog …”

OK, there’s nothing in the statute about impersonating a woodchuck.

The issues in this case were whether Jason entered Jeff’s property pursuant to the utility easement and whether he was a trespasser within the meaning of the dog bite statute.

The trial court determined that Jason was injured within the easement, where he had a right to be. However, the court said, the easement did not provide a specific place for the utility to enter the property, and therefore, Jason was required to make use of the easement in a reasonable manner. The court found that Jason did not act reasonably in deciding to enter Jeff’s property without notice and through a latched gate and a fence with a posted “no trespassing” sign. The court also noted that Jason failed to follow his own company’s policy in entering a property when there is a dog barking in an enclosed area. Because Jason did not make reasonable use of the express easement granted to the utility company, he was a trespasser within the terms of O.R.C. § 955.28(B). The trial court granted Jeff’s summary judgment motion.

Jason appealed.

Held: Jason was a trespasser and not entitled to damages.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Jason that he had a right to enter the easement, and because entry to the easement was blocked, he took the only reasonable avenue open to him through the backyard fence.

However, in determining whether a person is a “harborer” under the statute, the Court said, “the focus shifts from possession or control over the dog to possession and control of the premises where the dog lives.” The hallmark of control is the ability to both prevent and exclude others from coming onto the property. Because Jason entered the property without permission, Jeff lost the ability to control his property at the time of the incident. Thus the trial court properly denied Jason’s motion for partial summary judgment and properly granted summary judgment to Jeff on the O.R.C. § 955.28 claim.

– Tom Root

WERE WE ALARMISTS?

Yesterday, I noted the incremental creep of the law toward imposing an affirmative duty to inspect trees. The Turner v. Ridley court suggested that it was no longer sufficient for an owner to lack actual or constructive knowledge of a defective tree. In some cases, he had a duty to inspect, and, in the absence of doing so, he was charged with knowing that his trees were dangerous.

Was I wrong in predicting that Turner portended the judicial application of a duty to inspect? Today’s case was decided only a few years after Turner by the same court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In this case, a tree standing next to an apartment house fell across an alley onto Tilford E. Dudley’s place. Dudley’s name itself is classic – evocative of a titled cousin come to visit the Granthams at Downton Abbey.

Tilford sued the apartment owner, Meadowbrook, Inc. At trial, (land)lord Dudley showed that the tree, although quite alive when it fell, had a five-foot-long concrete patch on one side and was decayed from the inside out. It hadn’t been shedding branches, but because of the proximity of the apartments, soil had been banked several feet high around the tree, and a “well” had been dug at its base for the trunk.

The trial court threw out the suit after Tilford Dudley finished his direct case, holding that the defendants won as a matter of law because there was no evidence they were on notice that the tree was defective.

The Court of Appeals was apparently rather impressed that the tree had been patched with enough concrete to rebuild the 14^th Street Bridge. Concrete plugs in trees were a common enough treatment to fend off decay years ago, but – like physicians’ bloodletting as a cure for illness – it has fallen out of favor recently. But in this case, the Court said, such a big concrete patch – as well as, possibly, the banked soil and apartment building only four feet from the truck ­– ought to have caused the owner’s manager to do something to inspect the tree or, importantly, hire an arborist to inspect the tree. There may have been evidence she did so, but the Court of Appeals said that Meadowbrook couldn’t hide behind a general lack of obligation to inspect.

The Court thus nudged the standard a bit further along. If something in the tree’s history – and the concrete patch apparently was over 10 years old – might suggest that it was diseased or injured at one time, the Court seemed to say, an owner might have an affirmative duty to inspect, or even to hire an expert to inspect, her trees.

Of course, there’s no telling what condition might trigger such an affirmative obligation. Decayed trunk? Dead limbs? Bracing or cabling installed by a tree service? A surfeit of twigs shed by the tree? Insects clinging to the bark? No one can say, but you can be sure that a court will be more willing to Monday-morning quarterback a defect that results in collapse, holding that the property owner should have been inspecting for it.

Dudley v. Meadowbrook, Inc., 166 A.2d 743 (C.A.D.C. 1961). A large tree on Meadowbrook’s property fell across an alley and onto Dudley’s premises, damaging his garage and other property. Dudley sued for his damages. At the end of Dud’s case, the trial court found for Meadowbrook, ruling that it was unnecessary for the defense to put on any answering evidence.

Dudley appealed.

Held: The holding was vacated, and the case returned to the trial court.

The tree, which had been growing since before 1942, fell when no strong wind was blowing. When an apartment house was built there, the soil had been banked 2 or 3 feet deep on two sides of the tree, and a concrete well was built around the tree trunk. The apartment building was about 4 feet from the tree well, and a paved parking area was about a foot away. Dudley testified that the tree was about 75 feet tall and 2.5 feet wide at the base. Where it broke off at ground level, there were indentations extending about 6 inches below the ground and into the base of the tree trunk, and an area of about 2 feet inside the trunk appeared “spongy, decayed and soft,” although no decay was visible on the outside of the trunk. Dudley said the tree was in full foliage with no dead branches but that on one side of the trunk, there was a strip of concrete extending from near the base to a height of about 5 feet. The cement had been there for at least 12 years before the tree fell.

The Court admitted that the law was muddled, but held that “the sound and practical rule is that liability in such cases is to be determined by the test of negligence and that a landowner should be held to the duty of common prudence in maintaining his property, including trees thereon, in such a way as to prevent injury to his neighbor’s property.” It then opined that “[a] healthy tree does not ordinarily fall of its own weight without some exterior force being directed against it. Though some evidence suggested the tree looked sound, it was, in fact, full of rot. At least 13 years earlier, it had been subjected to surgery and a large area filled with concrete. We think it cannot be said as a matter of law that during all the intervening years the owners were under no duty to inspect it or have it examined by an expert to see whether it required further attention and whether it was safe to let it remain standing.”

Without any evidence other than its own sense that something didn’t seem right that the tree had fallen without any apparent external factor and that it had once had surgery, the court substituted its judgment for the evidence in the record. Some of its holding can be ascribed to courts’ natural bias in favor of letting a jury decide rather than having the case taken from the factfinder by a trial judge. But if evidence of surgery more than 13 years prior is sufficient to “require … [the owners] to produce evidence as to what they knew about it or what examinations they made during the many years since the tree was last treated,” then a generalized rule that requires urban owners to inspect their trees cannot be far behind.

Here, the case was sent back for a new trial.

– Tom Root

YEAH, LITERALLY

One of the many badges that marks me as a curmudgeon, according to a recent book, is my preoccupation with proper language. OMG! Am I ever!  I suppose people use slang because YOLO. But since this blog aspires to be the GOAT of tree-and-neighbor law sites, I’m going to stay frosty and keep it real.

I trust you recognize irony when it smacks you in the face.

I am not ashamed to admit that my gorge rises when people say “irregardless” when they mean “regardless,” say “affect” when they mean “effect,” or use “like” every third word or so. And don’t get me started about made-up nonsense like “ze” or “Mx” or “Latinx.” As far as we’re concerned, “ze” should always precede the word “plane” and be shouted by Tattoo. “MX” will always be a missile program. As for “Latinx,” it’s just wrong. Ask 97% of Latinos what they think.

But what drives me nuts (metaphorically) is the casual and improper use of the word “literally.” The word means “actually” or “without exaggeration.” Believing as I do that the widespread devaluation of like every corner of the English language is like literally going to send us to hell in a handcart, I was surprised to see that today’s case ­– well over 50 years old – featured a witness describing “literally thousands of bees inside the trunk” of the decayed tree.

I was fascinated that, with such a swarm pursuing him, the witness took the time to count the bees, at least until he passed 2,000. That took nerves of steel. Literally.

Beyond my disquiet over the witness’s imprecise and flawed language, I was interested in the application of both Hay v. Norwalk Lodge No. 730, B.P.O.E., 92 Ohio App. 14, 109 N.E.2d 481 (Supreme Court, Ohio, 1951) and Brandywine Hundred Realty Co. v. Cotillo, 55 F.2d 231 (3rd Cir. 1951). While those decisions – which I’ve discussed recently here and here – relate to injury to passing motorists, the court here couldn’t see any practical difference between the landowner’s duty to a motorist and to a parked car. Furthermore, it found that the tree was so obviously dead and dangerous that the landowner was chargeable with knowing about its condition, although he’d only owned the property for a few weeks.

The court said that a few weeks was not so legally insufficient a period of time for him to have gotten over and inspected the place that the factfinder was wrong for finding him liable.

The trend here is clear: the law was moving toward holding that a property owner had an affirmative duty to inspect the land. Actual or constructive knowledge wasn’t enough. The absentee owner should have done a drive-by, the court decided by implication. Thus the evolution of a requirement that an owner affirmatively care for his or her property continued.

Turner v. Ridley, 144 A.2d 269 (Ct.App.D.C. 1958). Turner owned a house facing a street on which automobiles were regularly parked. The small front yard featured a single large tree. On a fall evening, Ridley’s friend parked Ridley’s car at the curb in from of Turner’s house. Early the next morning, with no inclement weather to blame for the event, the tree toppled and fell across the sidewalk, striking Ridley’s car.

At the time the tree fell, according to the man who had parked Ridley’s car – a man named Reid ­– the tree ‘was rotten and looked like it was dead and had very few leaves on it.’ and on the night before it fell he had remarked to a friend ‘that tree looks like it is going to fall someday.’ As it fell, the tree broke off even with the ground, and then it was observed that the tree was hollow and badly decayed with ‘literally thousands of bees inside the trunk.’

Turner testified he had purchased the property through an agent at a foreclosure sale a month before the mishap, that the property had been vacant since he purchased it, that he had never seen the property or the tree, and that he had no notice or knowledge that the tree was in a dangerous or rotten condition. The trial court awarded judgment to Ridley for the damages he sustained.

Turner appealed.

Held: Turner was liable for the damage to Ridley’s car. While prior cases diverge somewhat, the Court found the Ohio decision in Hay v. Norwalk Lodge No. 730, B. P. O. E., instructive, holding that “an owner having knowledge of a patently defective condition of a tree which may result in injury to a traveler on a highway must exercise reasonable care to prevent harm from the falling of such tree or its branches on a person lawfully using the highway.”

Knowledge could either be actual or, as held in Brandywine Hundred Realty Co. v. Cotillo, constructive, “if such condition was known or by the exercise of ordinary care could have been known by the defendant.”

The Court admitted that Hay and Brandywine dealt with personal injuries to travelers on the highway, but it observed that there is “no distinction in principle between the case of personal injury to one lawfully traveling on a highway and the case of property damage to a vehicle lawfully parked on the highway.” The issue was whether the owner – who had only owned the property for a few weeks and who had never seen it before – could be charged with constructive knowledge of the tree’s condition. There was no question that the tree was obviously dangerous and quite dead. The Court acknowledged that “[a] three-week period is no great length of time, but we cannot rule that such period was legally insufficient time for appellant to look over his property and observe the condition of the tree and take steps to prevent its fall. We think the evidence presented a factual question as to notice and lack of care.”

“Hard cases are the quicksands of the law,” as an old maxim put it. Here, the intersection of an absentee owner, an obviously defective tree, a fairly minor damage bill, a colorful witness and lack of any defense by Turner, combined to bring about a holding that imposed additional duties on a landowner.

– Tom Root

IT DOESN’T TAKE THAT MUCH TO BE RECKLESS

Two years ago, my bride of 45 years and I were climbing up an ash-covered glacier (in Iceland, where else?), doing things with an ice axe and crampons that seem kind of reckless for two people on Medicare with five grandchildren to be doing. I can fairly say, however, that 47 years ago, our wedding had nothing to do with climbing the Empire State Building.

Nevertheless, it’s a fair segue into today’s topic.

We all have some sense of what constitutes reckless conduct. At least, to channel the late Justice Potter Stewart, we’re pretty good at knowing it when we see it. Riding a motorcycle into a wall at 100 mph while drunk? Yeah, probably reckless. Standing on a ledge at the top of a skyscraper for to propose? You bet. Lying between railroad tracks while a train passes? We’ll give you that one, too.

But when the law uses the term “reckless,” in fact, when the law adopts any standard- the term has to have a specific definition. If not, laws punishing conduct that did not meet the standard would be arbitrary (and would also fall short of their goal of discouraging people from being reckless in the conduct of their affairs).

I’m sorry, Justice Stewart. ” Knowing it when [you] see it” is trenchant, but it’s not a good way to regulate conduct.

In today’s case, a Buckeye State classic, a car repair business trespassed on a neighboring business’s land to hack away at some spruce trees. The car repair manager thought the trees belonged to his company, but his belief – which ran counter to the facts – was so heedless of the consequences that the court found him reckless.

We have seen worse cases that were considered to be mere negligence, and we cannot discount that the trial court in this case was influenced by the extent of the damage to the “visual barrier” between the professional building (populated with the offices of lawyers, doctors and engineers) and the seamy oil-change-and-lube joint next door.

“Recklessness” allowed the trial court to grant treble damages under Ohio law to the office building owner. Unsurprisingly, the trial court found recklessness. Maybe cynicism is creeping into our analyses as we age (we prefer the expression “as we get wiser”), but if the real estate owner had made the same unsupported surmise about the grease monkey’s trees, we suspect his misfeasance would be found to fall somewhere short of “reckless.”  Just sayin’.

ALH Properties, P.L.L. v. Procare Automotive Service Solutions, LLC, Case No. 20991, 2002-Ohio-4246 (Ct.App. Summit Co., Aug. 21, 2002) 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 4412. ProCare and ALH were adjoining landowners. ALH had an office building on its property, and ProCare operated an auto repair facility. Between the two properties stood a row of large Norway spruce trees, providing a visual buffer between the two businesses. The trees are on ALH’s property, although some of the branches extend over ProCare’s property. ProCare cut branches off of the lower ten feet of the spruce trees, destroying the visual buffer. The branches will not grow back.

ALH sued, alleging reckless injury of the trees under Ohio Revised Code 901.51. The trial court entered judgment against ProCare for $34,200.

ProCare appealed.

Held: ProCare was liable to ALH.

Section 901.51 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that “[n]o person, without privilege to do so, shall recklessly cut down, destroy, girdle, or otherwise injure a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree, or crop standing or growing on the land of another… “In addition to a criminal penalty, the statutes subject a violator to treble damages for the injury caused.”

The Court held that as used in the statute, the term “recklessly” has the same meaning in a civil claim for treble damages as it does in a criminal proceeding for violation of the statute. A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

The Court acknowledged that a privilege at common law exists for a landowner to cut off branches of an adjoining landowner’s tree that encroach on his land. But here, ProCare trimmed not just the branches of the trees that faced its property, but also those facing ALH’s property. ALH’s president testified he had not given anyone permission to trim the trees and that he had previously trimmed branches that hung over his parking area and had removed one of the trees entirely because it had died.

ALH offered a videotape its president had made on the day ProCare trimmed the trees, which included his running commentary on the damage done to the Norways.  All the while, the property line marker – a large post – was clearly visible. Pictures taken both before and after ProCare trimmed the branches were admitted into evidence. ProCare stores old tires, oil cans, and a dumpster in the area near the trees, and the photos showed that the trees had created a visual buffer from ProCare’s property and helped reduce traffic noise.

Martin Long, a ProCare manager, testified that he believed the spruce trees were on ProCare’s property and assumed they were ProCare’s because “nobody ever took care of them.” He said he trimmed other branches hanging over ProCare’s property on two previous occasions with no negative consequences. He admitted that on one occasion, one of the Norways — which was dying — had been removed by someone other than a ProCare worker. However, he pointed out, in the spring, ProCare would mulch the trees, and no one ever told him that the trees were not on ProCare’s property.

Long believed that only limbs that faced a direction other than toward ALH’s property were cut off. He said that when Myers approached him about ProCare trimming the trees, it was the first indication he had that the trees were not on ProCare’s property. Long admitted that when the dying spruce was removed, he did not know who removed it, but he did know that he personally had not directed anyone to remove it, nor did he have to pay for its removal. He stated that he thought ALH had removed it because of the risk it posed to ALH’s buildings.

The trial court found that the removal of the tree branches was reckless because Long had reason to know facts that would lead a reasonable person to question whether the trees belonged to ProCare. The trial court held that the complete removal of a large spruce tree in this row of trees at no expense or trouble to ProCare was an indication that ProCare did not own the trees nor was it responsible for maintaining them. The trial court also noted that Long’s testimony that the only branches cut were those that overhung ProCare’s property was disputed by the videotape and photographs, which clearly showed other branches were cut that did not overhang ProCare’s property.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s conclusion that ProCare was reckless was not against the weight of the evidence. The Court held adequate evidence showed ProCare disregarded a known risk with heedless indifference to the consequences when it trimmed branches of trees that were clearly on ALH’s property.

ProCare also argued that the trial court’s calculation of damages is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

ALH’s president testified that soon after ProCare trimmed the trees, he contacted two landscaping companies to install arborvitae to replace the barrier. A landscaper submitted a quote for $3,850 to plant 35 arborvitae, although he said planting arborvitae was inadvisable. He also said it was impractical to replace the spruce trees with ones of a similar size, given their 60-foot height. The landscaper provided a separate quote of $18,923 to remove the spruce trees, grind the remaining stumps, and plant a row of Colorado spruce.

A different landscape contractor testified for ProCare and said $3,750 to plant a row of arborvitae was appropriate, and that the shrubs would provide an adequate screening between the properties. He quoted $12,200 to remove the Norway spruce, grind the stumps, and plant Colorado spruce. He thought, however, that Colorado spruce would not provide an adequate barrier because they cannot be pruned properly. He recommended planting White Pine instead because White Pine can be pruned and trimmed more easily than spruce. His estimate to plant a row of White Pine was $11,400.

The trial court found that the best solution to replace the visual screening between the two properties was to replant trees, but that planting Colorado spruce was a disproportionate expense. It ruled that White Pine was a reasonable tree type for restoration and awarded damages of $11,400. The amount was trebled pursuant to O.R.C. 901.51, for a total award of $ 34,200.

The court of appeals held that the trial court’s decision was reasonable.

– Tom Root