Case of the Day – Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Posted on April 24, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END

The last snows of winter should have melted by now, which does not explain the snowflakes that drifted past my kitchen window and covered the car. Still, the first mowing of the grass (and the second and the third) are under my belt. Can Memorial Day and the official start of the summer swim season be far behind?

The advent of the swim season got me thinking about – what else? – liability. Nationally, there are about 800 spinal cord injuries a year from swimmers — mostly young people — diving into shallow water. The idea that you ought to check the depth of the water before diving in is as pellucid as Bahamian waters. Yet diving accident victims and their families often litigate the issue anyway. Today’s case is an interesting application of the “open and obvious” doctrine.

The Koops, who were lakeside property owners, weren’t recreational users because their property was open only to invited guests, not the public. So they had no immunity under Ohio’s recreational user statute. As invitees, their guests were owed ordinary care by the Koops – which included a warning of any dangers that weren’t open and obvious. When one guest ran across the dock and dove into 18-inch water — rendering himself a quadriplegic — he sued the Koops for negligence. The Court ruled that the danger was open and obvious.

Not to be deterred, Galinari argued on appeal that he had been distracted by “attendant circumstances.” Not a bad argument: “attendant circumstances” can defeat the “open and obvious” doctrine. But such circumstances must divert the attention of the injured party, significantly enhance the danger of the defect, contribute to the injury, and be beyond the control of injured party. Attendant circumstances in the past have included such circumstances as time of day, lack of familiarity with the route taken, lighting conditions, and accumulation of ice. But here, the best the plaintiff could muster was that the water was inviting, other people were swimming in the lake, and there were no posted warnings. Not enough, the Court ruled, to excuse the young man from the simple precaution of checking water depth first.

Not all shallow water is so well labeled …

Galinari v. Koop, 2007-Ohio-4540, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 4509, 2007 WL 2482673 (Ct.App. Clermont Co., Ohio, Sept. 4, 2007). In a tragic July 4th accident, 21-year-old Nick Galinari dove off a dock into a shallow lake owned by Koop, severely injuring his spinal cord and rendering him a quadriplegic. Galinari was invited by his girlfriend, Kristin Bounds, to attend a family party hosted by Koops on their property.

The property included a small, man-made lake on which guests are permitted to swim, canoe, fish, and generally use for recreational purposes. On the shore of the lake, there was a ramp connected to a floating dock, all of which extended about 28 feet into the water. The water near the shoreline is quite shallow, fluctuating between approximately ankle-deep and knee-deep. Galinari and his girlfriend pitched a tent and then mingled with guests at the party for about 45 minutes. Galinari, Kristin, and Kristin’s sister then decided to go swimming. Kristin went into the lake while Galinari changed clothes. He then headed down the stairs to the ramp and floating dock to enter the water. He saw Kristin in the water near the end of the dock, but could not recall later if she was standing or swimming. Without stopping to check the depth of the water at the end of the dock, Galinari jogged to the end of the dock and attempted a “shallow dive” to the right of Kristin. The water where he dove was about 18 inches deep. He struck the bottom of the lake, severely injuring his spinal cord. There was no sign on the property, nor did anyone give any verbal warnings, about diving off of the dock due to the depth of the water.

Galinari sued the property owners for negligence for failure to warn him about a dangerous condition on their property. The owners moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were under no duty to warn Galinari of something as open and obvious as the shallow lake. The trial court granted the Koops summary judgment, agreeing that the shallow water was an open and obvious condition and that they, therefore, had no duty to warn Galinari about a danger that he could have discovered through ordinary inspection. Galinari appealed.

Held: Galinari lost. He contended that despite the known dangers involved in diving, the question of the Koops’ negligence in failing to warn him of the shallow water required jury evaluation. He argued that he was a social guest on Koops’ property and that they breached a duty of care in failing to warn him of the dangers of diving off of the dock into their lake.

The Court disagreed, holding that in order to establish a cause of action for negligence, Galinari had to first show the existence of a duty. A social host owes his invited guest the duty to exercise ordinary care not to cause injury to his guest by any act of the host or by any activities carried on by the host while the guest is on the premises. This includes warning the guest of any condition of the premises known to the host and which a person of ordinary prudence and foresight in the position of the host should reasonably consider dangerous if the host has reason to believe that the guest does not know and will not discover the dangerous condition.

However, a property owner owes no duty to warn invitees of dangers that are open and obvious. The rationale for this “open and obvious” doctrine is that the nature of the hazard serves as its own warning, and invitees then have a corresponding duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid dangers that are patent or obvious. In determining whether a condition is open and obvious, the determinative question is whether the condition is discoverable or discernible by one who is acting with ordinary care under the circumstances. This determination is an objective one: a dangerous condition does not actually have to be observed by the claimant to be an open-and-obvious condition under the law.

Here, the Court held, it is clear that the depth of water at the end of the Koops’ dock was a discoverable condition. Kristin was standing in the water near the end of the dock when Galinari dove in. The water on that day was at or below her knees. The lake bottom was clearly visible from the floating dock where Galinari dove. Galinari presented no evidence justifying any reason to believe that the water may have been deeper where he dove. He hadn’t been told he could dive from the dock and he hadn’t seen anyone dive from that dock before him. Kristin was the only person he recalled seeing in the water as he jogged forward along the ramp and dove off of the dock. Based on this evidence, the Court said, the water was a discoverable condition by someone exercising reasonable care under the circumstances. Sadly, the Court said, if Galinari had merely looked at the water at the end of the dock, or stepped into the water to determine its depth, he would have easily determined that the lake was too shallow for diving. However, he took no precautionary measures prior to diving into the lake.

But Galinari argued that despite the open and obvious danger created by the shallow water, the doctrine of attendant circumstances precluded summary judgment. Attendant circumstances are an exception to the open and obvious doctrine and refer to distractions that contribute to an injury by diverting the attention of the injured party, thus reducing the degree of care an ordinary person would exercise at the time. An attendant circumstance must divert the attention of the injured party, significantly enhance the danger of the defect, contribute to the injury, and be beyond the control of the injured party. The phrase refers to all facts relating to the event, including such circumstances as time of day, lack of familiarity with the route taken, lighting conditions, and accumulation of ice. Galinari argued the “inviting nature of the water,” “other water activity” and the “lack of warnings” were circumstances contributing to his belief that the water was safe for diving.

The Court noted that while the nature of the cool water may have been inviting on a hot Fourth of July, it would not consider that to be an “attendant circumstance” distracting Galinari from exercising ordinary care. Certainly, the Court said, inviting water did not prevent Galinari from being able to discover its depth. Nor did the existence of other docks and slides, the length of the dock from which he dove, and the presence of people and canoes in the water create a visual appearance that diving from the end of the dock was safe. It was clear from this testimony that the “attendant circumstances” that Galinari asserted were not distracting him from exercising due care because he did not even notice them. These circumstances in no way prevented him from exercising the ordinary amount of care or led him to believe that the water was safe for diving.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Posted on April 23, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

DOG BITES MAN

A little neighbor law today: Dog bites are big business in the United States. They happen all the time, which is why “Dog Bites Man” and its obverse are the archetypical predictable or unpredictable newspaper headlines. Man’s best friend sinks canine fretwork into a human over 3.5 million times a year. Insurance payouts for dog bites exceed $1 billion a year (or, by comparison, 10 million barrels of oil at $100 a barrel). Some dog attacks can be fatal. Many more are just plain ugly.

Today’s case is one of those ugly ones, a sweet little 3-year-old girl attacked without provocation by her cousin’s pit bull. Our focus today is on the denouement, as the Delaware court apportions the financial blame for the accident. Not that it much matters – the defendants didn’t bother to put on a case, which suggests that neither little Destiny nor her mother will ever collect a dime.

Still, it’s a reminder that (1) just about every state regulates the liability a dog owner has for the bites inflicted by Fido, and most of those statutes impose liability without any proof of negligence; (2) permitting a default judgment to be entered against you is a very bad idea; and (3) the concept of “joint and several” liability means that a plaintiff can collect it equally from several defendants, or all from one and none from the other.

Campbell v. Robinson, 2007 Del. Super. LEXIS 563, 2007 WL 1765558 (Del.Super.Ct., June 19, 2007). Young Destiny Campbell was attacked by a dog kept by Frances and Turquoise Robinson. The attack caused severe injuries, including the removal of Destiny’s right ear and a significant portion of her scalp, and created long-term physical and mental health consequences. Her mother, Alicia Campbell experienced emotional distress after witnessing the attack.

Alicia sued on behalf of her daughter, complaining that as the owner of the dog, Turquoise was liable under Del. Code Ann. Title 16, § 3053F, which imposes liability upon owners for injuries caused by their dogs. Additionally, she claimed that Turquoise was negligent in maintaining a dog she knew to be vicious and in failing to warn those on the premises of the dog’s vicious nature and that Frances Robinson was liable for housing and maintaining a dog known to be vicious and dangerous, for failure to warn, and for failure to protect those who entered the premises.

The Robinsons apparently decided to let sleeping dogs lie, and failed to answer the complaint. The trial court granted default judgment against both defendants and set a hearing to consider damages. The Robinsons showed up for that one but did not testify. That probably wasn’t such a good idea, because the trial court entered a judgment of $750,000 for compensatory damages against Turquoise Robinson, an award that no doubt left Turquoise feeling blue.

Based on the fact that the plaintiff alleged violation of the dog bite statute, the trial court reasoned that Frances Robinson could not be liable to Destiny Campbell because she didn’t own the dog. The trial court apportioned $20,000 damages apiece against Turquoise and Frances for emotional distress caused to Alicia Campbell.

Alicia appealed, complaining that the trial court should have made Frances liable for the $750,000 as well.

Held: The Court agreed that the $750,000 must be apportioned equally between the Robinsons. Delaware has long recognized that “when the negligent acts of two or more persons concur in producing a single indivisible injury, such persons are jointly and severally liable, though there was no common duty, common design, or concerted action.” The joint and several liability of two codefendants, the Court said, entitled a plaintiff to seek recovery from either or both of the defendants, provided that total recovery does not exceed the full amount of damages. At the election of the plaintiff, either defendant may be held individually liable for the entire judgment.

A default judgment constitutes a final judgment that provides a determination of the merits of a case, and — the Court noted — a defaulting party admits all of the allegations contained in a complaint. Here, the Court said, its entry of default judgment established that both Robinsons were joint tortfeasors and were jointly and severally liable for all damages arising from both of the claims contained in the Plaintiffs’ complaint. The allegations in the complaint supported joint and several liability, charging wanton and negligent acts by the Robinsons, which combined to proximately cause harm to Destiny and her mother in a manner not “divisible” or separately attributable to either defendant.

The Court held that the fact that Count I of the complaint was labeled “Count I-Violation of 16 Del.C. §3053F” does not permit Frances to evade joint and several liability to Destiny Campbell. While she was not the dog’s owner and was not liable under the dog bite statute, Count I nevertheless established negligent and wanton conduct unrelated to the dog bite statute and made Frances equally liable.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, April 22, 2024

Posted on April 22, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

ADVERSE POSSESSION BY COMMITTEE

Weyerhaeuser Co. bought a big old farm in southeastern Oklahoma for timber operations back in the 1980s. No sooner had it harvested its last tree but next-door neighbor Brantley started taking advantage of the absentee owner.

Not so fast, Mr. Brantley ... it's not quite that easy.

Not so fast, Mr. Brantley … it’s not quite as easy as all that.

Over a 20-year period, Brantley claimed, he had grazed his cattle on the place, even running off hunters authorized to hunt there and denying access to Oklahoma Wildlife officers who had a deal with Weyerhaeuser to open the place as a recreation area. But the farm was a big place and there were a lot of players. Brantley’s father grazed his cattle on the place, too, for a while, but unlike his boy, Père Brantley had a lease from Weyerhaeuser. Brantley’s brother — cut from the same cloth as Brantley himself — grazed his cattle on the place and claimed a piece of it, too. Even Oklahoma State University had a lease from Weyerhaeuser to use part of the farm as a research facility.

Finally, the time came that Weyerhaeuser was ready to resume timber and gravel operations. it found Brantley to be underfoot, so the company sued him in trespass to remove him from the place. Brantley claimed he owned the place under the doctrine of adverse possession.

No, the Court said, he did not. Adverse possession requires, among other things, that the possession of the land be exclusive. Brantley’s possession of the place was more communal, the Court observed, with other actors coming and going all the time. You just can’t have a committee of people commonly possessing a place adversely. Where two people have entered onto a piece of land, the one who has the better title is the one in possession. And in this case, that was the guy who occupied the land as the lessee. Brantley’s Dad, who had leased the land from Weyerhauser, was the one in possession. Not his piratical son.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Brantley, 510 F.3d 1256 (Ct. App. 10th Cir., 2007). Sherrill Farm is located in a scenic portion of southeastern Oklahoma, along the Mountain Fork River and near the Arkansas border. Weyerhaeuser had owned the farm since the early 1980s, at least the entire period of the dispute. Young Carl Brantley claimed he had begun grazing livestock on Sherrill Farm as early as 1980-81, although he had never had permission to use it. Since then, Brantley said he had built corrals, feed troughs, and fences on the property. He also removed brush, applied fertilizer, harvested wheat, and maintained roads. Although he installed a locked gate on the farm in the early 1980s, he never paid property taxes on the land. Brantley claimed his adverse possession of Sherrill Farm began in the winter of 1987-88 after Weyerhaeuser last harvested a stand of trees on the property.

During the years Weyerhaeuser used the area for its timber operations, it permitted others to use Sherrill Farm. Brantley’s father had a license agreement to graze on Sherrill Farm beginning in 1983 until 1992. In 1987, Weyerhaeuser leased parts of Sherrill Farm to Oklahoma State University. OSU planted two research sites in the southern part of Sherrill Farm but made no use of the northern half. OSU complained to Weyerhaeuser about damage to its research plantations from livestock and built a fence to protect the plantations, but it did not seek to have Brantley’s cattle removed from Sherrill Farm entirely. OSU asked Brantley to cease grazing in the leased area, but Brantley was uncooperative. OSU also maintained its own locked gate to Sherrill Farm. Because of this alternative access, Brantley’s gate never prevented OSU or Weyerhaeuser from accessing Sherrill Farm.

In 1998, Weyerhaeuser and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation included Sherrill Farm in the Three Rivers Wildlife Management Area. According to the agreement, the general public could access Sherrill Farm for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. Brantley’s locked gate prevented a state wildlife officer from accessing Sherrill Farm during some visits. Brantley testified he saw hunters on the property during this time and asked them to leave. In 2003, Weyerhaeuser granted an easement to another landowner to access her property across Sherrill Farm, but Brantley refused to allow access to the easement through his gate.

You can’t adversely possess by committee …

Oklahoma State’s lease terminated in 2004. Weyerhaeuser had to resume timber production and begin gravel mining, but Weyerhaeuser said Brantley’s presence delayed these activities, resulting in monetary damages. In 2006, Weyerhaeuser sued Brantley for trespass.

Brantley asserted adverse possession or prescriptive easement as affirmative defenses. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Weyerhaeuser. Both the parties appealed. Brantley argued he possessed the land adversely, and Weyerhaeuser complained it should have been awarded $200,000 in lost profits.

Held: Weyerhaeuser’s judgment was upheld, but not the lost profits. Under Oklahoma law, to establish adverse possession, Brantley had to show that his possession was hostile; was under a claim of right or color of title; was actual; was open; was notorious; was exclusive; and was continuous for the full 15-year statutory period.

Weyerhauser owns or controls over 7 million acres of timber in the U.S. – it knows how to give squatters the bum's rush.

Weyerhauser controls over 7 million acres of timber in the U.S. – it knows how to give squatters the bum’s rush.

The Court found that Brantley did not have exclusive use of the property for 15 years – that length of time being the Oklahoma standard (your home state’s period may vary), and thus failed to establish adverse possession of the land. During the 15-year period, Brantley’s father held a grazing lease on the property, Oklahoma State conducted activities on the property, Weyerhaeuser conducted activities such as road maintenance and gravel sampling on the property, the land was part of a wildlife area managed by the State and open to the public, horses not belonging to Brantley grazed on the property, and Brantley’s own brother also claimed grazing rights to property by adverse possession. To show exclusive possession, Brantley had to show an exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it for his own use and benefit. Two persons cannot hold one piece of property adversely to each other at the same time, the Court said, and where two persons have entered upon the land, the one who has the better title will be deemed to be in possession.

However, Brantley did not have to pay the $200,000 special damages for trespass. A forest manager’s testimony that, but for the presence of Brantley’s cattle, the property owner would have netted $200,000 in profits from gravel mining — based on 150,000 tons during first year and 300,000 tons during second year — was held by the Court to be too uncertain and speculative to support damages award for lost profits. But the award of $10,000 against Brantley based on Weyerhaeuser’s lost timber sales, was reasonable: Weyerhaeuser had previously used the property for timber harvesting, and the property was currently suitable for planting and harvesting. Weyerhaeuser’s witness was a certified forester who had submitted an affidavit identifying the methodology for his damage calculations.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, April 19, 2024

Posted on April 19, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

I NEED THE MONEY, MAN

The old fence marked something … just not the boundary.

Poor (and we mean that quite literally) Mr. Hartshorne. He and next-door neighbor Coldsnow had had some disagreements about the property boundary about 25 years ago or so, and it’s fair to conclude that the Hartshornes probably don’t ask the Coldsnows over for tea and crumpets all that often.

In the late 90s, Mrs. Hartshorne went to her reward. Her death left Mr. Hartshorne saddled with debts, and he sold some of his timber to pay for it. He probably should have had his property surveyed (which would have cut into the timber profits, meager though those might be). Instead, Widower Hartshorne just told the logger that he could log to the old fence, which the Hartshornes had always thought was the property boundary.

It wasn’t. You know how these things go.

Sadly, had the timber sale been enough to cover Mr. Hartshorne’s debts, no one would ever have discovered that some of the trees he sold had actually belonged to his neighbor. But the proceeds were a little light. Thus, Mr. Hartshorne divided his property in order to sell some of it off.

When you divide property, you have to line up a surveyor to measure things out. The survey showed Mr. Hartshorne that the old fencerow was not the boundary after all.

His neighbor, Coldsnow (perhaps aptly named for all the sympathy he showed a poor widower), found out the same and realized that this meant that some of the trees Hartshorne’s logger had cut were on his land. Coldsnow sued for trespass, asking the court to treble the damages under the Ohio treble-damage-for-timber-trespass statute. The jury agreed with Coldsnow that the cost to restore or replace the timber was $11,500.00 and that Hartshorne was reckless. The damage award trebled to $34,500.

Hartshorne complained that the proper measure of damages should have been the decrease in value of Coldsnow’s land, and anyway, he wasn’t reckless. He had just made a mistake, and regular negligence did not support treble damages under the statute.

The Court of Appeals didn’t buy it. Coldsnow’s successful conflation of a few isolated border skirmishes over an eight-year period into a boundary war convinced the Court that Hartshorne — knowing of Coldsnow’s prior aggressiveness in enforcing the boundary — should have gotten a survey. Frankly, we suspect that Mr. Hartshorne must not have cleaned up very well for court, because there’s very little in the written decision that supports a conclusion that he acted recklessly, and thus, no other reason the Court should have oppressed him so.

We don’t think much of this decision. The Court is saying, in essence, that the more unreasonable your neighbor is, the more careful you’re required to be. It certainly makes it hard to define a community-wide standard of care. Because I live next to a sweet old lady who would let me sell her front door if I wanted to, I should be held to a lower standard of reasonableness? That simply does not make sense.

Knowing that your neighbor is a curmudgeon is hardly a basis for saying that your failure to take his cantankerousness into account is reckless conduct.

Coldsnow v. Hartshorne, 2003-Ohio-1233, 2003 WL 1194099, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 1163 (Ct. App. Columbiana Co., Ohio, March 10, 2003). Coldsnow sued Hartshorne for cutting down some of the trees on Coldsnow’s property. Hartshorne began to cut down some trees, one of which was near the fence line between his and Coldsnow’s property, in 1991. At the time, Coldsnow complained to Hartshorne about cutting down that tree and Hartshorne stopped cutting down trees near the fence line. In 1995, Hartshorne had problems with people trespassing on his land to hunt. In response, Hartshorne bought some “no trespassing” signs and placed them all around his property. He also spray-painted orange circles on trees near the signs to bring them to people’s attention. Some of the trees he spray-painted were on Coldsnow’s property. Coldsnow complained about the signs and the spray paint to the Hartshornes. In 1997, Hartshorne’s wife died, and to pay the bills from her illness, Hartshorne decided to log and sell some of the trees on his property. He hired a forester, to do the logging and agreed to evenly split the profits with the forester.

Lawyers always advise their clients to dress well for court. Maybe Mr. Hartshorne ignored his attorney's advice. What else would account for this whacked decision?

Lawyers always warn their clients to dress well for court. Maybe Mr. Hartshorne ignored his attorney’s advice. What else would account for this whacked decision?

Hartshorne asked the forester to selectively harvest the forest, in order to thin out the canopy to allow smaller trees to grow more quickly. He also showed the forester the property lines and asked him to only log trees more than 15-20 feet away from those lines. He did not have his property surveyed before hiring the forester, instead just showing him an old fence line which Hartshorne believed was the property line. Coldsnow became aware of the tree harvesting when Hartshorne’s property was being surveyed so a portion of it could be sold as another means of paying off his wife’s debt. Coldsnow hired a surveyor, who found that some of the stumps from trees that had been harvested were on Coldsnow’s property. Coldsnow sued, claiming trespass and a violation of §901.51 of the Ohio Revised Code, and Hartshorne claimed adverse possession, a claim that was dismissed before the end of the trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Coldsnow in the amount of $11,500 as the cost of restoration or replacement and found Hartshorne had acted recklessly. Accordingly, the trial court granted judgment in the amount of $34,500. Hartshorne appealed.

Held: The jury verdict was upheld. The Court found the jury’s damages award was reasonable and its conclusion that Hartshorne acted recklessly was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Hartshorne argued that the proper measure of damages was the diminution of the value of the real estate because of the logging. But in a case involving a violation of O.R.C. § 901.51, the Court said, the restoration/replacement cost of the trees is a proper measure of damages when the injured party intended to use the property for residential and/or recreational purposes, according to their personal tastes and wishes. As Coldsnow used his property in this way, the Court held, he did not first need to show a diminution in the value of the land before receiving restoration damages. The Court found that the jury’s conclusion that Hartshorne acted recklessly was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, because the evidence showed that Hartshorne had a history of ignoring the boundary line between the properties.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, April 18, 2023

Posted on April 18, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

CRUISIN’

Huey Lewis and Gwinneth Paltrow covered Smokey Robinson’s 1979 hit, Cruisin’, in a duet recorded in 2000. For most of you, that’s ancient history. But people like me, however, remember what we were doing when Smokey’s version first made the charts. Seems that ’79 was a pretty good year…

But we’re not cruising’ down Memory Lane here. Instead, the cruising’ we’re talking about today is all about trees. You’re surprised? You shouldn’t be – that’s what we do.

An interesting decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois contains a trove of judicial findings of fact and application of law in a timber trespass case, including an explanation of timber cruising. The Court presided over a trial of an overzealous timber harvester, whose timbering activities went beyond the owner’s property and took 231 of Uncle Sam’s trees formerly attached to the Shawnee National Forest.

Now you’d think that 231 trees would be a trifling to a government that can approve multi-trillion stimuluses without reading the bill, and then spend it all within about three weeks. But nothing’s too petty to escape the eagle eye of the United States Attorney.

The case is interesting not so much because the Court wisely slapped down the tree cutter’s claim that the Government had to show he intended the trespass (read our discussion a few days ago of Stukes v. Bachmeyer on that subject) — but because the Court carefully describes the technique of timber cruising and differentiates between stumpage value and timber value. You should read the full case: the Court finds tree cutter Kosydor liable through a carefully constructed wall of direct and circumstantial evidence, it finds against the Government on unjust enrichment, and it gives a shaky analysis of why the suit against Kosydor was filed within the statute of limitations.

And if you’re of a mind to read more, the U.S. Forest Service has a detailed handbook on tree cruising available for downloading, as well as some pretty slick software.

United States v. Kosydor, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61621, 2007 WL 2409557 (S.D.Ill., Aug. 21, 2007). Larry Griffin, a conservation officer for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, went to Terry Foster’s property to investigate a deer hunting complaint. He noticed timber cut from what appeared to be the Shawnee National Forest. At the time, the boundary line between Foster’s property and the Shawnee was not marked, and no survey had ever been conducted to establish the boundary line.

After Griffin reported matters to the U.S. Forest Service, the agency conducted a survey to establish the actual boundary line between Foster’s property and the Shawnee. Once the boundary was marked, the Forest Service initiated a timber cruise.

Timber cruising includes identifying a tree species, taking stump diameter measurements, taking measurements from the stump to the top of the tree left on the ground, taking measurements of any logs left on the ground, and recording measurements on a tally sheet. A total of 231 tree stumps were counted on the Shawnee property in the area adjacent to Foster’s property. Information regarding each stump was recorded, including its species, its diameter, and the distance from the stump to the corresponding treetop left in the woods.

Kosydor owned and operated a timber logging business. He contracted with Foster to harvest timber from Foster’s land. His agreement provided for a 50/50 split of proceeds generally, with a 70/30 split on walnut veneer in favor of Foster. Although Kosydor, who was aware that Foster’s property bordered the Shawnee, denied cutting any trees in the National Forest, one of his employees testified emphatically that he had cut trees from the Shawnee National Forest under Kosydor’s direction.

As for the owner, Mr. Foster was unaware of anyone else, other than Kosydor, doing logging off of those areas during the period of time that he has lived there. The only reasonably available route for accessing and removing the wrongfully cut timber passes over Foster’s property and within very close proximity to his residence.

Held: Kosydor was liable to the government under the Illinois Wrongful Tree Cutting Act. The Court found that Kosydor had voluntarily taken on the responsibility of determining the boundary line between Foster’s property and the Shawnee, despite a provision in their contract that Foster would be responsible for doing so, and that he was responsible for the entire logging operation. The Court noted that to prevail on the WTCA claim, the government had to prove that Kosydor intentionally cut or knowingly caused to be cut trees belonging to the United States which he did not have the full legal right to cut.

Kosydor argued the government had to prove that he intended to trespass on the National Forest land, but the Court disagreed. All the United States had to do, it held, was to prove he intended to cut the trees that happened to belong to the Government. Kosydor’s allegedly innocent mistake as to the location of the boundary line, the Court said, was not a defense to the WTCA claim. The Court observed that it is rational that the burden of establishing boundaries be placed on a defendant who orders wood to be cut. Otherwise, it would be advantageous for a defendant to cut now and worry about tree boundary lines later, since the maximum financial burden he would face would be the stumpage value of the severed trees.

One purpose of the WTCA is to discourage timber cutters from cutting trees without thoroughly checking out the boundary lines. The Act is meant to discourage not only the malevolent timbermen but also errant timbermen.

Under the WTCA, stumpage value is used to calculate the underlying value of the timber. Stumpage value and timber value estimates, the Court said, both depend upon timber volume estimates, which in turn are based upon the raw data collected in the field by timber cruisers. Put another way, estimating the value of timber taken in a trespass involves a three-step process. First, a timber cruise is conducted and measurements are taken in the field. Second, the collected measurements are then converted into volume estimates using established mathematical formulas. Third, those volume estimates are then converted into value estimates.

The distinction between timber value and stumpage value only comes into play during the third step of the process. Stumpage value is the value of standing trees or what one might pay for the right to cut and remove trees. Timber value is the value paid by mills for cut logs. In this case, the Court held, the stumpage value was about $12,500, reduced from the Government’s estimate by 10% to give Kosydor the “benefit of the doubt.” Because the trebling of stumpage value is mandatory under the Illinois WTCA, the total loss was about $37,500.

The Government had already reached a separate peace with Foster, who paid $18,000 to make his problem go away. This was deducted from the judgment, and Kosydor was ordered to pay about $19,500.00.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Posted on April 16, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

YOU’LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT

We’ve all had it happen to us. Our next-door neighbor gets drunk and rams his bulldozer into our best shade tree, gouging it up pretty badly. Then we have to sue, and while the torn-up grass he left behind and shrubs he rolled over get paid for, we get nothing for the tree. All because he wounded it but didn’t kill it.

What? You say it hasn’t happened to you? OK, but it did happen to Mike and Melissa in Huron County, Ohio. When neighbor Bob Tite got a little tight and rammed their tree, the trial court told them they’d get nothing for the wounded walnut, because it’s not dead. Dead trees we can figure the cost of, but a wounded tree… Well, it may die sooner instead of later, but who can say? The trial court said the damage is “speculative.”

Speculative? If Mike or Melissa had been rammed by the tight Mr. Tite, they would have been able to collect for their injuries without having to die first. And trees are people, too, right? Well, maybe not, but a tree probably shouldn’t have to die before a property owner can get compensation for damage to it.

Tinney v. Tite, 2012-Ohio-2347 (Ct.App. Huron Co. 2012). One summer day, Mike and Melissa Tinney heard a loud noise outside of their house. When they looked out through the window, they saw their across-the-road neighbor, Bob Tite – quite inebriated at the time – sitting on his bulldozer lodged hard up against a sizeable black walnut tree in their back yard. Deep ruts across their lawn and two smaller trees splintered on the ground marked the path the bulldozer had taken.

The Tinneys sued Bob for the damage. Their certified arborist expert said damage to the walnut covered 25 to 30 percent of the circumference of the tree. He testified the extent of the damage “ruined” the tree because, although it would not kill the tree immediately, it would result in “a slow decaying process” that would eventually compromise the structural integrity of the tree and cause it to become a hazard. The arborist was unsurprised that the tree was still producing leaves one year after the incident. He said the wound was starting to develop a callus as the healing process proceeded, but the tree would weaken over time because the wound would not heal completely before decay set in. He could not say that the tree would die from the wound, but he said that the structural integrity of the tree is likely to become a dangerous factor in the future.

The Tinneys also called a witness who had a degree in landscape horticulture. He said the severity of the damage would probably stress the tree out, and eventually, the old walnut would die. He testified that as the years progressed, the Tinneys could expect more decay and more branches showing signs of decline. He said the tree’s declining and potentially dying was “not an immediate thing. It’s going to take some time” because “it’s a long process for this tree to decline.”

Bob’s sister testified in support of her brother, however, testifying that she saw the damaged black walnut the summer after the incident, and it looked “healthy, green, and alive” despite the wound on the trunk.

The Tinneys won a judgment of $3,410.00. The award covered the lawn and the saplings but included nothing for the wounded but still living walnut tree because the trial court found that giving them damages for the walnut tree’s injury would be “potentially temporary and speculative at best” since “its appearance remains the same.”

The Tinneys appealed.

Held: The Tinneys were entitled to damages for the injured walnut tree.

The Court observed that most decisions involving O.R.C. § 901.51 – the Buckeye State’s statute on wrongful cutting of trees – involve situations where trees have been completely cut down, making it considerably easier to determine the full extent of the damage. In this case, the tree is still alive, even if it is not necessarily guaranteed to stay that way for decades to come. Nevertheless, the Court said, temporary damages to vegetation are recoverable, because it is a “fundamental rule of the law of damages is that the injured party shall be fully compensated.”

As a general rule, speculative damages are not recoverable. An award of damages must be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty and in some manner other than mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise. However, the Court ruled, if an appellant “establishes a right to damages, that right will not be denied because the damages cannot be calculated with mathematical certainty.” Even when permanent damages are awarded for trees that were cut down, temporary damages may still be awarded if the permanent damages alone do not fully compensate the plaintiff.

Both of the Tinneys’ experts testified it was reasonably certain that the tree was permanently damaged because it would not heal before decay set in. The Tinneys furnished precise calculations on the reasonable restoration value of the property. Therefore, the Court ruled, they had shown “with a reasonable degree of certainty what would be required to reasonably restore their property. The damages to the tree must have had some value, but the plaintiffs were awarded nothing, even if just a nominal amount for the temporary trespass onto their property.”

The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court for a calculation of damages to the wounded walnut tree.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, April 15, 2024

Posted on April 15, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT

Anyone who follows the law (or, for that matter, reads this blog) must from time to time read about a case that seems… well, just so trivial.

What can we say? Lawyers have to eat, too, and some of our brethren and sistren in the bar will take some ridiculous cases, just because the monied defendant will pay nuisance value to make the case go away.

Sometimes, hard to believe, a case is too trivial even for the court. In today’s case, we review one of three fact patterns from three separate apparently trivial cases that were wrapped into a single New York Court of Appeals decision (the Court of Appeals being New York’s highest court). If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can go right to the decision and read about the other two cases included in the decision, both of which involved falling on staircases. The fact pattern we’re focusing on is sufficient to provide an excellent illustration of the trivial defect doctrine.

As the Court puts it in the decision’s preface, “it is usually more difficult to define what is trivial than what is significant.” The trivial defect doctrine differs from the ancient legal maxim “de minimis non curat lex,” which – as my beloved high school Latin teacher, Emily Bernges, would have explained – translates as “the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.” Usually, “de minimis non curat lex” applies when the injury is insignificant, i.e., a hotel guest asked for a king-size bed and got a queen-size bed instead. The trivial defect doctrine, on the other hand, applies where the injury is quite real, as in victim-plaintiff Lennie Hutchinson’s trip and painful fall over a small protrusion in the sidewalk. No one doubted that Lennie was good and truly hurt. Instead, the question was whether the defect he tripped over was trivial. Thus, the “de minimis non curat lex” situation attends where the defect is real but the injury is trifling. The trivial defect doctrine applies when the obverse is the case.

Certainly, at first blush it seems easy enough to dismiss Lennie Hutchinson’s complaint that he tripped over something a fraction of an inch wide and another fraction high. But as we’ll see, invoking the Trivial Defect Doctrine is not always easily done.

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 66, 19 N.Y.S.3d 802 (Ct.App. N.Y. 2015). Leonard Hutchinson was walking on a concrete sidewalk in the Bronx when his right foot “caught” on a metal object protruding from the sidewalk and he fell, sustaining injuries. Hutchinson sued Sheridan Hill House Corp., the owner of a building abutting the site of Leonard’s fall. Under New York City Administrative Code Sheridan was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.

Leonard described the metal object as being “screwed on in the concrete” and gave rough estimates of its dimensions. Sheridan’s attorney had the sidewalk inspected, and found the object, cylindrical in shape, projected “between one eighth of an inch… and one quarter of an inch” above the sidewalk and was about five-eighths of an inch wide.

The trial court granted Sheridan summary judgment on the ground that it lacked notice of the defect. The appellate court affirmed, holding additionally that the metal object’s “minor height differential alone is insufficient to establish the existence of a dangerous or defective condition.”

Leonard took the case to New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Held: The defect Leonard complained of was trivial as a matter of law, and thus not actionable.

The Court said a defect alleged to have caused injury to a pedestrian may be trivial as a matter of law, but such a finding must be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone. Indeed, a small difference in height or other physically insignificant defect is actionable if its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnify the dangers it poses, so that it “unreasonably imperils the safety of” a pedestrian.

Liability does not turn on whether the hole or depression that causes a pedestrian to fall constitutes a trap. Many factors may render a physically small defect actionable, including a jagged edge, a rough, irregular surface, the presence of other defects in the vicinity, poor lighting or a location – such as a parking lot, premises entrance/exit, or heavily traveled walkway – where pedestrians are naturally distracted from looking down at their feet.

Liability from physically small defects are “actionable when their surrounding circumstances or intrinsic characteristics make them difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as hazards or difficult to traverse safely on foot,” the Court said. “Attention to the specific circumstances is always required.”

Finally, the Court said, under the trivial defect doctrine, a defendant seeking dismissal on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must first show that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact.

Sheridan met its burden by producing measurements indicating the metal protrusion was only about a quarter inch high and 5/8ths inch wide, together with evidence of the surrounding circumstances. Hutchinson tried to show features of the defect that would magnify the hazard it presented, arguing it had a sharp edge, was irregular in shape, and was firmly embedded in the sidewalk, so that “it could snag a passerby’s shoe.” Hutchinson argued he should not be required to look at his feet while walking on the sidewalk.

The Court was unimpressed. It said the characteristics Hutchinson identified were common to sidewalks. Instead, the Court said, the “relevant questions are whether the defect was difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances.”

Here, the metal object protruding only slightly from the sidewalk, was in a well-lit location in the middle in the middle of the walk in a place where a pedestrian “would not be obliged by crowds or physical surroundings to look only ahead.” The object stood was not hidden or covered in any way so as to make it difficult to see. Its edge was not jagged and the surrounding surface was not uneven. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances presented, “including but not limited to the dimensions of the metal object,” the Court said, “we conclude that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.”

– Tom Root