Case of the Day – Monday, April 8, 2024

Posted on April 8, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

WORKERS COMP TRUMPS CREATIVITY

Whenever an accident results in permanent disability, it is understandable that the injured party and his family looks for as many deep pockets as they can find.

A million bucks sounds like a lot of money (unless you’re Congress), at least until you deduct a third for the lawyers, and spend the rest on a lifetime of care and support for a paraplegic. The facts of today’s case are rather prosaic: workers from a landscaping service were trimming a tree. Something may have slipped — or maybe it was just one of those things — but a tree limb fell and struck José Garza, who was on the ladder, knocking him off and causing spinal cord injury.

Missouri workers’ comp awarded José $1 million. But he nevertheless sued his employer and the other workers who present that day, alleging negligence. The Missouri trial court quickly threw out the claim against the employer — after all, this kind of litigation was just what workers’ comp was supposed to avoid. But the Court struggled with the claims against his jobsite supervisor and two fellow landscapers.

The move was creative. After all, José argued, the statute just protected the employer from liability, not anyone else who happened to be there (like co-workers, who – face it – can sometimes be dim bulbs). Why shouldn’t other employees, especially supervisors, be liable for negligence?

The Court of Appeals said, “No way, José.” In order to take the co-workers outside the protection of the statute, José would have to show some they had engaged in some sort of purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct, much more than the garden-variety negligence he alleged had occurred that day. To rule otherwise would completely undermine the policies underlying workers’ comp, and at the same time make it just about impossible to recruit and afford to keep employees (who would demand insurance coverage as a condition of employment).

Thus, the courts never reached the question of whether anyone had been negligent that day, because even if everything José alleged were true, it would just not be enough.

Garza v. Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 61 (Ct.App.Mo. 2007). José Garza worked for Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, Inc., as a landscaper. One day, he was told to report to a home to provide landscaping services. Brad Mason, a supervisor, directed which trees to trim. Garza’s crew leader, Rafael Moya, instructed Garza to climb a ladder and cut a specified limb. Moya placed the ladder against the tree, held the ladder, and rigged ropes to the limb to be cut. Javier González held the rope which Moya had rigged, while Garza climbed the ladder. While Garza was on the ladder, the limb knocked him to the ground, causing a permanent spinal cord injury.

Garza filed a worker’s compensation claim and collected over $1 million on the claim. He then filed a complaint in state court against Valley Crest, Mason, Moya and González, alleging negligence. The Defendants moved to dismiss on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that worker’s compensation was the sole remedy available to Garza.

The trial court agreed. Garza appealed.

Held: The dismissals were affirmed. Normally, workers compensation is intended to be a worker’s only remedy for injuries on the job, even where those injuries are the result of the negligence of the employer. Generally, co-employees enjoy the same protection under the exclusive remedy provision of the workers compensation statute as the employer, absent a showing of something more. That “something more” is a determined on a case-by-case basis and includes any affirmative act, taken while the supervisor is acting outside the scope of the employer’s duty to provide a reasonably safe environment, that breaches a personal duty of care the supervisor owes to a fellow employee.

Allegations by Garza against his co-workers that they failed to securely hold a ladder, failed to properly rig ropes to the branch being cut, failed to create a proper support with the rope, and failed to use reasonable care in holding the rope did not amount to the purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct that was required to move the co-workers outside the protection of the statute’s exclusive remedy provisions.

The Court held that mere allegations of negligence are “not the kind of purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct that Missouri courts have recognized as moving a fellow employee outside the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Law’s exclusive remedy provisions.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, April 5, 2024

Posted on April 5, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT

Rare is the opportunity to glean two instructive cases from one malefacting (if that’s a word) defendant. However, such is our good fortune with Ohio developer Angel’s Path, LLC (and yes, the apostrophe suggests there was only one angel on the path). Last month, we reported on disgruntled Angel’s Path neighbor Clarence Peters, who narrowly escaped being thrown out of court because he defended against summary judgment on the cheap. At the time, we promised the tale of the Kramers the next day. Sorry about that – who knew how much interesting stuff would happen in the meanwhile?

But at long last, we find out how his neighbors, the Kramers, fared when they went after the same developer because their home was disrupted by noise, dirt and even light from the new home development.

The Kramers claimed the dust and dirt was a public nuisance, and that Angel’s Path was causing the light to trespass on their homestead. These were both creative arguments, but the Kramers were doing their best to find a legal theory that would address the injustice they were experiencing. The developer leveled its legal guns, taking a very legalistic approach: the nuisance couldn’t be a public nuisance, it said: a public nuisance has to be affecting the plaintiff differently from the general public, and the general public was eating Angel Path’s dust just as badly as were the Kramers. As for the annoying light, Angel’s Point contended, there just weren’t any cases that said light could be a trespasser.

Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously chided a lawyer arguing before him that “this is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” Fortunately for the Kramers, the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals wasn’t having any of that. Often one can tell when a court is stretching to find some way to do justice. Clearly, the appellate judges were disenchanted with the developer, the lawyers for which were essentially telling them that while Angels’ Path had done everything the Kramers accused it of, there wasn’t anything the law could do about it. Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.

But it turned out that there was something the Court could do about it. It reinstated the suit, warning the Kramers that they might find it tough to win a trial, but the facts they had alleged suggested several theories they could pursue.

With the case once again headed for a jury of just plain folks who would be unimpressed with Angel Path’s legal hair-splitting and probably sympathetic to the sleep-deprived, dust-covered Kramers, one imagines that Angel’s Path very quickly recalled another pithy legal aphorism: “A bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit.”

Our takeaway from this case is that nuisance actions can be both flexible and powerful means of redressing neighbors’ activities that interfere with the legitimate enjoyment of home and hearth.

Kramer v. Angel’s Path, LLC, 174 Ohio App.3d 359, 882 N.E.2d 46 (Ct.App. 6 Dist. Ohio 2007). William and Patricia Kramer sued Angel’s Path, L.L.C., alleging that construction in its housing development resulted in blowing dust and dirt tracked onto their street and trespass from a lighted “promotional” sign that blazed in the front of the Kramers’ residence 24 hours a day. They alleged that Angel’s Path’s development was a public nuisance because of the dirt and Angel’s Path was actually trespassing on their land with the 24-hour lighted sign.

The trial court threw the suit out altogether. The Kramers appealed.

Held: The Kramers could proceed to trial against Angel’s Path.

The Court of Appeals held that the Kramers were clearly wrong that the development was a public nuisance, but the facts they had alleged in their complaint, if true, did make out a claim for a private nuisance. The rule is that courts should interpret complaints to do “substantial justice,” and it would be unfair to make hyper-technical demands for precision in complaints. The rules only require that a complaint “contain a short and plain statement of the circumstances entitling the party to relief and the relief sought.” The factual allegations in the complaint should control whether some legal cause of action has been properly pleaded and supported on summary judgment.

The opinion contains a welcome primer on nuisance law. The Court noted that the law of nuisance “has been described as the most ‘impenetrable jungle in the entire law’.” Generally, though, nuisance” is defined as “the wrongful invasion of a legal right or interest.” It may be designated as “public” or “private.” A public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public,” and arises only where a public right has been affected. To recover damages under a claim of public nuisance, the plaintiff must establish (1) an interference with a public right and (2) that the plaintiff has suffered an injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large.

To the Kramers, “Blinded by the Light” was more than a Springsteen ditty once covered by Manfred Mann … it was an every-night occurrence.

By contrast, a “private nuisance” is a non-trespass “invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” Unlike a public nuisance, a private nuisance threatens only one or a few persons. In order for someone to be entitled to damages for a private nuisance, the invasion has to be either (a) intentional and unreasonable or (b) unintentional but caused by negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous conduct.

A nuisance may be “continuing or permanent.” A continuing nuisance arises when the wrongdoer’s tortious conduct is ongoing, perpetually generating new violations. A permanent nuisance, on the other hand, occurs when the wrongdoer’s tortious act has been completed, but the plaintiff continues to experience injury in the absence of any further activity by the defendant.

For a nuisance to be an absolute nuisance, it must be based on intentional conduct or an abnormally dangerous condition that cannot be maintained without injury to property, no matter what precautions are taken. Strict liability is imposed upon an absolute-nuisance finding. When a defendant commits an unlawful act deemed to be an absolute nuisance, he or she becomes an insurer, and will be liable for “loss resulting from harm which may happen in consequence of it to persons exercising ordinary care, irrespective of the degree of skill and diligence exercised by himself… to prevent such injury.”

Every day seemed like the Dust Bowl to the Kramers …

On the other hand, if the conduct is a “qualified” nuisance, it is premised upon negligence. A qualified nuisance is defined as essentially a lawful act “so negligently or carelessly done as to create a potential and unreasonable risk of harm, which in due course results in injury to another.” Under such circumstances, the nuisance arises from a failure to exercise due care. To recover damages for a qualified nuisance, negligence must be alleged and proven. Whether a party’s actions were reasonable is generally a matter for the trier of fact.

Trespass on real property occurs when a person, without authority or privilege, physically invades or unlawfully enters the private premises of another. The elements of a trespass claim are “(1) an unauthorized intentional act and (2) entry upon land in the possession of another.” A trespass claim exists even though damages may be insignificant. A person can be a trespasser without actually stepping onto another’s property. A trespass may be committed by invading the airspace of the property. This principle is based upon the concept that an owner of land owns as much of the space above the ground as he or she can use.

Here, Angel’s Path argued that the Kramers’ “public nuisance” was undercut by their admission that several neighbors suffered from the same excessive dirt and dust that bothered the Kramers. Therefore, it claimed, the Kramers failed to establish a claim for nuisance because their injuries were no different than those suffered by the public in general. Angel’s Path also argued that the light shining into the Kramer home was not a trespass.

The Kramers countered with an affidavit and photos of the property across from their home and of their home, showing that the dirt and dust blew straight from the Angel’s Path property across their land. They even produced Weather Service wind records supporting the claim. As for the light, they contended that the entrance-sign light – directly across from their house – continuously lit up their home “in an annoying and harassing manner,” including the three front bedrooms. They had asked Angel’s Path turn off the light, nothing changed until after they sued, and took the deposition of an Angel’s Path executive.

The Kramers showed proof of the dirt in their home, and documented the costs of cleaning it up. They also described the Angel’s Path sign – “like a headlight shining into [the] bedroom windows” – and the problems this caused.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Angel’s Path that a claim for “public” nuisance could not be sustained, because too many people apparently suffered the same deprivations. Under this line of reasoning, the Court observed, a person creating a public nuisance could escape liability simply by harming more than one party. Plus, the Court held, even if the Kramers had no public nuisance claim, they may still have a claim for private nuisance. Although Angel’s Path construction may be lawful, questions of fact remained as to whether the developer failed to exercise due care and was so negligent “as to create a potential and unreasonable risk of harm” resulting in the Kramers’ injuries. Thus, the Court wouldn’t through out the suit.

The Court was concerned that the light invasion claim was “an unusual and perhaps creative application of trespass law.” The Court conceded that arguably, the Kramers could assert that the light physically invaded the airspace over their property. But even if this argument doesn’t carry the day, the Court said, genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the lighted sign may be a public or private nuisance.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, April 4, 2024

Posted on April 4, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

COULDA, SHOULDA, WOULDA

Trials are much more of an art than a science. Trial attorneys walk a fine line between not putting enough evidence on to support their case and dumping so much data into the record that the factfinder cannot dig its way out of the pit of minutiae to reach the right conclusion. I once had an old law professor who cautioned us not to tell him more about the elephant than he ever wanted to know. It’s sort of like that.

Still, the sense that you should never leave any fish in the pond when you’re done angling is not the worst instinct to act upon.

Take the Wolfenbargers, people who probably should have read their property deed a little more carefully when they bought their property next to the Woods’ place. If they had, they probably would not have mistakenly thought they owned the common driveway and thus could cut down the six Eastern Red Cedars that flanked the gravel strip. It’s a bad idea to cut down the neighbors’ trees, even when you think they’re yours. It’s a worse idea to try to defend a tree case against plaintiffs whose surname is “Wood.”

But it’s a worse idea still for your lawyer to figure he or she can rely on rapier-like cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ experts to make your valuation case. The Wolfenbargers’ mouthpiece may have saved them a few bucks on an expert, but he was “pennywise and pound foolish,” as they say. An old lawyer would have told him that “hope is not a strategy.” Neither is complaining to the court that the plaintiffs did not make the kind of damages showing you think they should have. Do you want a damages showing you can argue to the judge or jury? If so, you had better put the evidence on yourself.

The Wolfenbargers coulda, shoulda, woulda put some diminution of value evidence on, expert testimony that showed the Woods’ place did not lose a third of its value because six lousy trees were cut down. But they didn’t…

Wood v. Wolfenbarger, Case No. E2011-01953-COA-R3-CV (Ct.App. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2012), 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 563, 2012 WL 3329525. The Woods owned property next to that of the Wolfenbargers. The two parcels share a gravel road, which the Wolfenbargers mistakenly believed they owned. They did not.

In the spring of 2009, the Wolfenbargers cut down trees on both sides of the road. The trees, Eastern Red Cedars, belonged to the Woods and were healthy mature trees when they were cut down. The Woods sued.

The only issue to be decided at trial was the amount of damages. The Woods offered testimony from Jim Cortese, a certified master arborist. He testified that there were varying approaches to figuring the value of the trees. First is the cost approach. One subset of the cost approach is repair cost, which measures the cost to repair broken branches and other less-than-fatal damage to the tree. There is also replacement cost, a method used when the trees are a total loss, but are of the size that can be replaced with the same species of roughly the same size and quality.

Then, there is the “trunk formula method.” Jim testified that the trunk formula method is to be used when the tree is too large to be replaced. The value calculated by that method is the cost of replacing the tree with the largest locally available plant and adjusting for the size difference, species classification, condition classification, and location classification of the appraised tree.

Jim also described a timber value method to be used for trees grown as commercial lumber, employed to determine the value for a stand of timber in a woodland setting where the trees are of sufficient size and character to be harvested. Here, Jim said, the timber value was not the appropriate method for determining the value of the Woods’ trees. He explained: “It was my opinion that there were not enough trees to justify a timber sale. It was – the trees were not really – they just wouldn’t be suitable for a timber sale.” He also explained that “a timber sale is always between a willing buyer and a willing seller. It is not a forced upon somebody valuation that they have to accept what the value of the trees [is].”

Jim calculated that if the timber value of the trees was considered, it would be just $840.00. However, he opined that the timber value should not be used here, because this was no commercial timber stand. Instead, Jim testified that the replacement cost method should be used to value the six trees cut in this case. testified that he has successfully transplanted trees as large as the ones at issue in this case. He figured the replacement cost for the trees at $161,300.

He also used the trunk formula method to value the damages. He testified in detail about this method, and valued the first tree at $14,700; the second at $5,400; the third at $19,000; the fourth at $10,600; the fifth at $5,800; and the sixth at $6,600, for total damages of $62,100.

The trial court said that because the Woods had not offered any evidence of the value of their land or how the aesthetics of the property had been damaged, it would not entertain any damages other than the timber value of the cut trees, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. Because the cutting was negligent, the trial court said, the statute authorized doubling the damages. The trial judge awarded the Woods $1,680.00.

The Woods appealed.

Held: The statute did not limit the Woods to the mere value of the wood. Instead, they were entitled to damages calculated by the trunk formula method, raising their take to $62,100.

The Wolfenbargers argued that because no evidence of diminution of value was presented, the timber value was the only appropriate measure of damages under Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. The Woods responded that they had presented three estimates of damages, and if the Wolfenbargers wanted the trial court to apply a different measure of damages than the Woods’ showing, they should have put on their own evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed. “Plaintiffs presented no evidence with regard to diminution of value. Neither, however, did Defendants. Neither the Trial Court nor this Court may award damages based upon a measure of damages when there is no evidence in the record regarding that measure of damages.”

The Court said, however, that the statute “clearly and unambiguously provided that ‘nothing in this section precludes an owner of the property on which timber has been cut by another from recovering damages for loss of value other than commercial timber value, if any, of the timber negligently or intentionally cut’.” Thus, the Woods were free to produce evidence of the measure of damages other than the timber value, which is what they did.

The Court of Appeals found that using timber value was inappropriate, observing that Jim Cortese specifically testified that timber value should not be used. No evidence in the record rebutted this testimony, the Court said, and the trial judge found Jim to be a credible witness. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals rejected the Woods’ contention that replacement cost should be used, noting that the Woods had bought their place in 2006 for $185,000. It was “unreasonable to argue that the proper measure of damages for the wrongful cutting of these six trees is the replacement value of $161,300,” the Court said, which was “an amount almost equal to the price… paid for the entire 38 acres only a couple of years earlier.”

However, the Court ruled the Woods’ trunk formula evidence did make sense. The evidence showed that the six lost trees were too large to be replaced for a reasonable cost. Jim’s trunk formula method provided a value for each tree, evidence that the Wolfenbargers did not challenge. “Given all this,” the Court said, “we find and hold that Plaintiffs proved that the trunk formula method was the appropriate method of valuing the damages in this case. We note that Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312 provides for doubling or tripling, when appropriate, of the current market value of the timber only. As Plaintiffs are not awarded the current market value of the timber, they are not entitled to an award of double the amount of their damages. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award damages to Plaintiffs in the amount of $62,100…”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Posted on April 3, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

CORNER WITH A VIEW

We’re watching the spring wheat green up along country roads. It’s still doggone cold – we had snow on the ground last weekend – but it is spring. It won’t be long until everything is growing, including at Ohio agricultural affliction, “corn to the corners.”

Corn to the corners – and no clear sightline.

We saw a great example of it at a crossroads last fall, the practice of planting right up to the edge of a field. We can hardly blame the farmer, who has to maximize the land’s yield in order to stay in business (and to cover the payments on a $200,000 tractor). But corn to the corners – like planting trees and shrubs near the road – can play havoc with sightlines and can pose a real hazard to motorists.

When an accident does happen, lawyers scramble to find as many defendants as possible, because usually, each defendant comes with his or her own insurance policy. As one old lawyer we practiced across from years ago like to say, you have to “get the money flowing.” Nothing makes it flow like a whole passel of deep-pocket insurance companies lined up on the defendants’ side of the room.

But what duty does a landowner have to people traveling by? After Margaret Sheley was killed when her automobile collided with Kimberly Cross’s vehicle at an intersection, her family decided to test those limits. They sued Cross, the County and Buryl and Hazel Grossman, who owned the land by the intersection. The Sheley family argued the Grossmans negligently planted crops on their land such that a motorist’s view of oncoming traffic at this intersection was impaired. The trial court held for the Grossmans, finding they owed no duty to Margaret Sheley.

The Court of Appeals agreed, drawing a distinction between a landowner who creates hazardous conditions on the roadway as opposed to conditions – hazardous or not – wholly contained on the landowners’ property. Like corn to the corners, or perhaps big, bushy trees.

Sheley v. Cross, 680 N.E.2d 10 (Indiana Ct. of Appeals, 1997). On October 15, 1992, Margaret Sheley was killed when her car ran into Kimberly Cross’s vehicle at an intersection. Margaret’s survivors sued Kimberly Cross, the County, and Buryl and Hazel Grossman, the farmer who owned the land next to the intersection. The Sheley family argued that Grossmans, as owners of the land next to the intersection, negligently planted crops on their land such that a motorist’s view of oncoming traffic was impaired. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Grossmans, finding that they owed no duty to Margaret. The family appealed.

Held: The Grossmans owed no duty to Margaret Sheley. Admittedly, the planting of vegetation is considered to create an artificial condition, not a natural one. A “natural” condition is limited to land unchanged by humans. The difference is significant since there are differing duties for natural versus artificial conditions.

Nevertheless, to recover under a theory of negligence, a plaintiff must first establish that the defendant had a duty to conform his or her conduct to a standard of care arising from a relationship with the plaintiff. Absent a duty, there can be no breach and, therefore, no recovery in negligence

The Court said that an occupier of land abutting on or adjacent to a public highway owes a duty to the traveling public to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to travelers from any unreasonable risks created by such an occupier. The landowner has no right to use the property to interrupt or interfere with the exercise of the traveling public’s right by creating or maintaining a condition that is unnecessarily dangerous.

The issue, the Court said, is whether the scope of this duty extends to refraining from creating conditions wholly on a landowner’s property that may impair a traveler’s vision of oncoming traffic at an intersection. The Court ruled that the landowner does, but “that duty is limited to refraining from creating hazardous conditions that visit themselves upon the roadway. Where an activity is wholly contained on a landowner’s property, there is no duty to the traveling public.”

The corn may have extended to the corners, but those corners remained on the Grossmans’ property. Thus, the Sheley family got nothing from the Grossmans.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, April 2, 2024

Posted on April 2, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

HURTS SO BAD

In case you missed it the past two days, this is a trackhoe removing a tree.

Today is our last day down on Dick Lavy’s Darke County farm. As you recall, last Thursday we watched the fun ensue after Dick’s faithful employee Sylvester trimmed the trees along a fencerow that separated one of the Lavy from land belonging to his neighbor, Jim Brewer.

We were quite impressed to watch Sylvester run a trackhoe down the Lavy side of the fencerow, smacking down branches with the machine’s bucket. It was not pretty, but it got the job done effectively and cheaply.

Jim Brewer, however, wasn’t very happy with the result and sued Dick Lavy Farms. Farmer Lavy argued the Massachusetts Rule let him trim overhanging trees any way he liked, that Sylvester wasn’t negligent or reckless and that the damage – if there even was damage – didn’t amount to much. The jury thought it was arboricide and socked Farmer Lavy for $148,350.

Friday, we watched the Court of Appeals for Darke County, Ohio, fillet Dick Lavy’s argument that the Massachusetts Rule was a license to butcher. The Court affirmed a landowner’s right to trim encroaching trees and roots to the property line but held that such trimming had to be done in a reasonable manner so as not to injure the adjoining owner’s trees.

The Court compared the various means of trimming a fencerow, comparing for ease of use, custom in the area, and cost. It concluded that the trial court was right to find DLF negligent in trimming part of the fencerow and reckless in continuing after a sheriff’s deputy advised Dick Lavy to get legal advice before continuing (advice the farmer ignored).

Today, the Court delves into the $148,350 damage award. Clearly, the Court is troubled that Jim only paid $170,000 for the whole 70 acres, and provided no evidence that the value of the land fell a farthing because of Sylvester’s trimming activities. The Court felt hard-pressed to see Jim get almost $150,000 when no trees other than some saplings were destroyed.

Jim didn’t help his cause by admitting (as he had to) that he only visited the land about eight times a year to hunt and picnic, and the trimming didn’t interfere with those activities. He argued that he planned to build a house there in another 14 years or so, but the Court couldn’t see that the damaged fencerow trees had any impact on those plans.

Usually, the measure of damages for a trespass where trees are cut is the difference in the land’s value after the cutting versus before the cutting. There are times when this measure does not capture the real loss: a family loses a cherished ornamental tree, for example, or the landowner nurtures trees for their ecological value.

That’s what Jim Brewer claimed, too…

In this case, however, it’s hard to see how Jim was hurt at all, not to mention hurt as badly as he claimed to be. Indeed, that’s how the Court of Appeals seems to read it, too. Come with us now on a detailed and thoughtful journey through all of the matters a court (and aggrieved party) should consider in setting the amount of loss. Although the Court sends the damage award back for the trial judge to deal with, it’s quite clear that the appellate panel is disinclined to turn the case into a winning lottery ticket for Jim Brewer.

Brewer v. Dick Lavy Farms, LLC, 2016-Ohio-4577 (Ct.App. Darke Co., June 24, 2016)

(These facts are repeated from the previous two days: If you don’t need the refresher, skip to the holding)

In 2007, James Brewer bought about 70 acres of rural property for $180,000. About 30 acres of the land were tillable, and 40 acres were wooded. The only access to the tillable and wooded property was a 25-foot-wide lane about 3,600 feet in length.

The former owner had allowed his neighbor Dick Lavy Farms to farm the property, and the lane had not been used. Brewer cleared the lane of undergrowth in order to access the rest of the property. The lane ran west to east, and had trees on both sides of the lane, with the trees on the south side forming a fencerow between Brewer’s property and land owned by Dick Lavy Farms. The trees in the fencerow were a woodland mix; none of the trees were ornamental or unique.

In January 2013, Dick Lavy ordered an employee to clear the fencerow between the two properties. At the time, Lavy understood that he could clear brush straight up and down the property line and that such clearing was important for crop production, yield and safety of farm equipment. Using a trackhoe, which had an arm that could reach about 15 feet in the air, the employee reached up, grabbed limbs, and pulled on them, trying to break them off cleanly. Although the employee tried to keep the trackhoe on DLF’s side of the property, occasionally a branch would snap off or tear the tree on Brewer’s side. Occasionally, a branch would fall on Brewer’s side, and the employee would reach over to grab the branch Sylvester stated that he never consciously reached over with the bucket to try and break a branch at the tree trunk that was on Brewer’s side of the property.

When Brewer learned that DLF was clearing the fencerow, he went out to look at the operation and called the sheriff. At that point, the track hoe was about halfway down the fencerow, destroying trees. A Darke County sheriff’s deputy told Lavy that a complaint had been made, and expressed his concern that civil or criminal issues could be involved in what he was doing. Lavy said that he had a right to take down any branches that were hanging over his property. In addition, Lavy said he would let Brewer remove the branches if Brewer wanted to do so, but he wanted the branches removed before crop season began in March or April.

Or, if you’re Sylvester, don’t use a chainsaw at all…

The deputy told Brewer that Lavy said that he was allowed to take tree branches from his side and that if Brewer did not like the way he was doing it, Brewer could cut them himself. Brewer told the deputy that he was going to have an expert look at the trees. The deputy filed a report with the prosecutor’s office, but no charges were brought.

Although the deputy suggested that Lavy obtain legal advice before continuing, Lavy continued clearing the fencerow. Knowing that Brewer was upset, Lavy told his employee not to clean up branches that fell on Brewer’s side.

Within days after the damage occurred, Brewer’s wife took photos of the damaged trees. Three months later, Brewer and an arborist counted 326 damaged trees.

Brewer sued Dick Lavy Farms, alleging a violation of O.R.C. § 901.51, reckless trespass, and negligent trespass. Prior to trial, the court held that Brewer was not limited to damages for diminution in value, and the court would apply a standard that allowed recovery of the costs of restoration.

DLF argued that it had a common-law privilege to cut off, destroy, mutilate or otherwise eliminate branches from Brewer’s trees that were overhanging DLF land. The Farm also argued that if it was liable, the proper measure of damages should be the diminution of Brewer’s property value; in the alternative, the court’s holding on the issue of damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, DLF claimed it had not negligently or recklessly trespassed on Brewer’s property.

The Court found for Brewer, awarding him $148,350 in damages, including treble damages of $133,515.

Dick Lavy Farms appealed.

(If you remember the facts from the previous two days, start here)

Held: The $148,350 in damages was set aside because Jim Brewer’s property really didn’t diminish in value.

The Court observed that in a previous case, it had held that where the trespasser could not reasonably foresee that trees had a special purpose or value to the landowner, and where the trespasser “cuts trees that are part of a woodland mix and not unique, the ordinary measure of the harm is the difference in the fair market value before and after the cutting.” The trial court, however, had relied on a different standard:

The question facing the court…

In an action for compensatory damages for cutting, destroying and damaging trees and other growth, and for related damage to the land, when the owner intends to use the property for a residence for recreation or for both, according to his personal tastes and wishes, the owner is not limited to the diminution in value (difference in value of the whole property before and after the damage) or to the stumpage or other commercial value of the timber. He may recover as damages the costs of reasonable restoration of his property to its preexisting condition or to a condition as close as reasonably feasible, without requiring grossly disproportionate expenditures and with allowance for the natural processes of regeneration within a reasonable period of time.

At trial, Jim’s expert arborist testified that the cost of removing the trees Sylveste3r had damaged would cost $55,000, and the cost of replacing them would be $138,000, plus tax. Jim did not offer any evidence that his 70-acre property’s fair market value had fallen by so much as a penny. DLF’s arboriculture expert testified that the life expectancy and service life functionality of the fencerow were not affected by the manner in which the trees were pruned. He valued the fencerow as a woodland edge fence and argued that real estate or fair market value would be the proper way to assess damages. Another DLF expert also testified that the fair market value of Brewer’s property was the same before and after the incident.

The trial court found that the removal of the damaged trees was unnecessary, and thus discounted that $55,000 cost. In addition, the court concluded that the $138,000 estimate for tree replacement was excessive and reduced that amount by 50%. The court also deducted 14% for ash tree disease, which had already caused the death of a number of trees on both sides of the lane. The trial court thus arrived at $59,340 in compensatory damages.

Next, the trial judge decided that DLF had negligently trimmed one-fourth of the property (or about 1,000 feet) and recklessly trimmed the remaining three-fourths of the fencerow. The trial court awarded $14,835 for negligence and $44,505 for DLF’s recklessness. Pursuant to O.R.C. § 901.51, the court trebled the recklessness amount to $133,515. This brought the total damages to $148,350.

The Court of Appeals noted Ohio’s general rule that “recoverable restoration costs are limited to the difference between the pre-injury and post-injury fair market value of the real property,” The courts have carved out an exception, however, that permits restoration costs to be recovered in excess of the decrease in fair market value when real estate is held for noncommercial use, when the owner has personal reasons for seeking restoration, and when the decrease in fair market value does not adequately compensate the owner for the harm done. This restoration cost exception has been applied, for example, where the damaged trees have been maintained for a specific, identifiable purpose (like recreation, or a sight, sound, or light barrier), when damaged trees are essential to the planned use of the property, or when the damaged trees had a value that can be calculated separately from ornamental trees have been destroyed, or where the trees form part of an ecological system of personal value to the owner.

Even where the restoration exception is applied, the Court said, “the proposed cost [cannot be] grossly disproportionate to the entire value of the injured property.”

The Court said that the damage to Jim Brewer’s trees was “temporary” (meaning, apparently, that the damaged limbs would grow back) and that the Ohio rule is that “damages for temporary injury to property cannot exceed the difference between market value immediately before and after the injury, is limited. In an action based on temporary injury to noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff need not prove diminution in the market value of the property in order to recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but either party may offer evidence of diminution of the market value of the property as a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of restoration.”

The trial court seemed certain that Dick Laye was a deep pocket, and that may have driven its damage award.

The trial court seemed certain that Dick Lavy was a deep pocket, and that may have driven its damage award.

“Viewing the trial court’s award of damages from the perspective of reasonableness,” the Court of Appeals said, “we must conclude that the award for restoration was objectively unreasonable.” First, the application of O.R.C. § 901.51 “almost exclusively involves situations where trees have been completely cut down, making it considerably easier to determine the full extent of the damage to the plaintiff’s property.” Here, Jim Brewer admitted that other than a few small saplings, he was not claiming that any large trees had been removed from his land. Instead, he contended only “that 326 trees had been damaged in some manner and would ultimately die, even though pictures of the area taken in June 2014 depict a substantial canopy of foliage… Brewer also testified that a number of trees had died, but he did not give any specific number.”

The Court found that Jim Brewer’s trees were not ornamental and were not located at his residence. Instead, they were native trees that were just part of a fencerow. Jim testified he used the property for hunting only about six times a year, and for family get-togethers maybe twice a year. He also admitted that the removal of branches had not had any effect on these activities or his ability to rent tillable land to farmers. Jim intended to put a house on the property after his 4-year-old child graduates from high school, but he didn’t claim that DLF’s tree trimming affected his plans to do so.

The Court found it noteworthy that Jim Brewer paid $180,000 for all 70 acres, yet claimed the restoration cost (including removal and replanting of trees) for a very small part of that property was more than $200,000.

Jim did not present any proof that the fair market value of the land had fallen because of the tree trimming. The Court agreed that he was not required to present such evidence but said, “It would have been helpful, particularly since two defense witnesses indicated that removing vegetation from the fence row did not impact the fair market value of the land.” Additionally, the Court found that much of the trial judge’s calculations “were based on speculation or were incorrect. For example, the court concluded that one-fourth of the fence row was trimmed negligently, but the plaintiff’s own evidence showed that more like 1,800 feet had been trimmed when Jim Brewer first complained. “The trial court could have chosen to disregard [the DLF employee’s] testimony,” the Court said, “but there is no logical reason to disregard the plaintiff’s own admission about how far the fence row had been cleared.”

The Court of Appeals was not inclined to see Jim Brewer get a winning lottery ticket…

The trial court also gave no particular reason for its 50% discount on damages. What’s more, the Court of Appeals complained, “The trees on the fence row were a woodland mix of native trees, not ornamental trees. A number of the trees were undesirable, and there was no evidence of special value. In addition, the fence row had been unmaintained for ten or twenty years. Even though these facts no longer require damages to be limited to diminution in value, they are still points that should be considered in deciding whether an award is reasonable.”

The Court of Appeals vacated the damages, and directed the trial court on remand to consider the reasonable restoration costs, taking into consideration the decrease in the fair market value of the land; the fact that the trees were a common woodland mix, not ornamental trees or trees that Jim had planted for a particular purpose; the fact that the fence row was not maintained for many years, and had undesirable and dead trees on each side of the row; the extent to which the trees have regenerated since the date of the 2013 trimming; the lack of impact on Jim’s intended home site; and the fact that Jim’s use of his property is “sporadic and is not impacted by any injury to the trees.”

The detailed list of evidence the trial court is to consider pretty much tells the trial judge how the Court of Appeals expects this to turn out.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, April 1, 2024

Posted on April 1, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

RUNNING AMOK WITH A TRACKHOE

Last Friday, we began three days down on the farm with Dick Lavy, and his faithful employee, whom we will simply refer to as Sylvester. As you recall, Farmer Lavy told Sylvester to trim the trees along a fencerow that separated one of the Lavy farms (and the opinion suggests Dick Lavy had a lot of farms) from his neighbor, Jim Brewer.

Sylvester did as he was told but with a trackhoe instead of a chainsaw. He crawled down the Lavy side of the fencerow, smacking down branches with the trackhoe’s bucket. It was not a pretty job, but it was effective and cheap.

When Jim Brewer sued, Farmer Lavy argued the Massachusetts Rule let him trim overhanging trees any way he liked, Sylvester wasn’t negligent or reckless, and the damage – if there even was damage – didn’t amount to much. The jury mauled Farmer Lavy as badly as his man Sylvester mauled Jim Brewer’s trees, returning a verdict for Jim Brewer in the amount of $148,350.

Last Friday, we watched the Court of Appeals for Darke County, Ohio, fillet Dick Lavy’s argument that the Massachusetts Rule was a license to butcher. The Court affirmed a landowner’s right to trim encroaching trees and roots to the property line but held that such trimming had to be done in a reasonable manner so as not to injure the adjoining owner’s trees. Today, the Court looks at whether Sylvester acted reasonably in chewing up the fencerow.

What’s interesting about the Court’s analysis is its reliance on expert testimony as to the prevailing custom for fencerow trimming in Darke County, the higher cost of using a chainsaw and bucket truck relative to track hoes and the dangers of alternative methods of trimming. As for recklessness, the Court was satisfied to learn that a sheriff’s deputy told Farmer Lavy that his neighbor was unhappy, but Lavy bullheadedly went forward without talking to the neighbor or at least checking with his lawyer to be sure what he was doing was legal. The lesson here is that when you’re on notice but choose to ignore it, you may be judged harshly.

After today’s installment, you’d be reasonable to think that Jim Brewer will probably collect that $148,350 in damages. Monday, we’ll finish Brewer v. Dick Lavy Farms, and you may be surprised.

Brewer v. Dick Lavy Farms, LLC, 2016-Ohio-4577 (Ct.App. Darke Co., June 24, 2016)

(These facts are repeated from last Friday: If you don’t need the refresher, skip to the holding)

A trackhoe – a blunt instrument for tree trimming.

In January 2013, Dick Lavy ordered an employee to clear the fencerow between the two properties. At the time, Lavy understood that he could clear brush straight up and down the property line and that such clearing was important for crop production, yield and safety of farm equipment. Using a trackhoe, which had an arm that could reach about 15 feet in the air, the employee reached up, grabbed limbs, and pulled on them, trying to break them off cleanly. Although the employee tried to keep the track hoe on DLF’s side of the property, occasionally a branch would snap off or tear the tree on Brewer’s side. Occasionally, a branch would fall on Brewer’s side, and the employee would reach over to grab the branch. Sylvester stated that he never consciously reached over with the bucket to try and break a branch at the tree trunk that was on Brewer’s side of the property.

When Brewer learned that DLF was clearing the fencerow, he went out to look at the operation and called the sheriff. At that point, the track hoe was about halfway down the fencerow, destroying trees. A Darke County Sheriff’s Deputy told Lavy that a complaint had been made and expressed his concern that civil or criminal issues could be involved in what he was doing. Lavy said that he had a right to take down any branches that were hanging over his property. In addition, Lavy said he would let Brewer remove the branches if Brewer wanted to do so, but he wanted the branches removed before crop season began in March or April.

Within days after the damage occurred, Brewer’s wife took photos of the damaged trees. Three months later, Brewer and an arborist counted 326 damaged trees.

Brewer sued Dick Lavy Farms, alleging a violation of R.C. 901.51, reckless trespass, and negligent trespass. Prior to trial, the court held that Brewer was not limited to damages for diminution in value, and the court would apply a standard that allowed recovery of the costs of restoration.

DLF argued that it had a common law privilege to cut off, destroy, mutilate or otherwise eliminate branches from Brewer’s trees that were overhanging DLF land. The Farm also argued that if it was liable, the proper measure of damages should be the diminution of Brewer’s property value; in the alternative, the court’s holding on the issue of damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, DLF claimed it had not negligently or recklessly trespassed on Brewer’s property.

The Court found for Brewer, awarding him $148,350 in damages, including treble damages of $133,515. Dick Lavy Farms appealed.

(If you remember the facts from yesterday, start here)

Held: Yesterday, we studied the Court’s holding that exercise of the Massachusetts Rule right to trim vegetation that encroaches on an owner’s property is constrained by the requirement that the trimming be done with reasonable care so as not to damage the neighbor’s property.

Today, the Court considered whether DLF had exercised such care, and unsurprisingly found that it did not.

The hierarchy of mens rea.

In his complaint. Brewer claimed a violation of O.R.C. § 901.51, negligent trespass, and reckless trespass. A common-law trespass to real property occurs when a person, without authority or privilege, physically invades or unlawfully enters the private premises of another, causing damage, even insignificant damage. The act of nonconsensual entry may be intentional or negligent.

The Court admitted the case was unusual because the DLF worker did not actually trespass on Brewer’s land other than when clearing off brush that had fallen or on one occasion when he lost control of the bucket of the trackhoe. In fact, the worker said he never consciously reached over to snap off a branch at the tree trunk that was on Brewer’s property. The action of clearing debris, the Court said, would not have harmed Brewer, but would actually have benefitted him.

The Court said most instances of trespass occur when people enter on to the land of another, cut down, and remove trees. Still, trespasses can result from people setting in motion actions that intrude on another’s land and cause damage. Thus, the liability could still exist even if DLF workers never actually stepped onto Brewer’s property.

The trial court had previously concluded that DLF was negligent by failing to cut or break the trees above its own land and that DLF breached a duty to ensure that no damage occurred on Brewer’s side of the property line. The trial court discussed two methods of trimming trees, using a track hoe to tear limbs along fences and using a bucket and chain saw, noting that “the more common but dangerous method of lifting a person” with the scoop bucket on a tractor more clearly respects the property line and causes less damage.

To establish actionable negligence, the party seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty, the breach of the duty, and injury resulting from the breach. To get at the duty, the trial court heard from expert witnesses about common practices in Darke County, Ohio, for cutting limbs. Brewer’s expert naturally said that the common practice is to use a chainsaw, hand saw, or pole pruner, but never a trackhoe (which would cause more damage to a tree). The expert estimated the cost of his recommended type of pruning to be about $16,000 for the length of the fence row.

The Court of Appeals concluded that few farmers could afford such an expense for pruning, a finding echoed by a number of farmers DLF called to testify. DLF’s witnesses said the custom in Darke County was to clear fences using a trackhoe or backhoe. DLF’s expert stated that he had farmed in the county for 45 years, and that the common practice for clearing fencerows for the last 15 years had been to use backhoes or trackhoes to tear limbs off overhanging trees. He also named commercial services that used this method. He said that using a bucket truck and chain saw is not common because of cost, as well as the danger it presents.

Another Darke County farmer in Darke County testified that the farmers he knows stand in a loader bucket and trim trees using a chainsaw, but he admitted the method was dangerous. He admitted he knew no one who used a trackhoe for trimming.

Arcanum, a small town in Darke County, is home of the annual Tour De Donut, in which people race their bicycles from stop to stop, where they see who can eat the most donuts the quickest. You know, Darke County may have its own standard for "recklessness."

Arcanum, a small town in Darke County, Ohio, is the original home of the annual Tour De Donut, in which people race their bicycles from stop to stop, where they see who can eat the most donuts the quickest. Although the 2017 race moved to Troy in neighboring Miami County (to accommodate the thousands of racers), the Tour helped Darke County establish its own standard for “recklessness.” (Full disclosure: We have raced this event four times… maybe we’re crazy, too).

The Court of Appeals said that in light of the record, the trial court’s conclusion that DLF was negligent was not erroneous. “Farmers may face difficult choices if the available methods are either too expensive, or risk damage to surrounding property, or risk the farmer’s safety. However, the issue in this case is simply whether the method in question caused unnecessary harm to the adjoining property. In view of the evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in the standard it applied, nor can we conclude that the court’s finding of negligence was against the manifest weight of the evidence. “

Likewise, the Court denied DLF’s that the trial judge’s finding that it was reckless was against the weight of the evidence. Dick Lavy admitted that sheriff deputies told him that Brewer was unhappy with the trimming and asked him to stop clearing the lane. Dick neither told his employee to stop clearing the line in order to give Brewer a chance to do so nor did he contact Brewer to discuss the matter. There was no need for speed: Lavy told Deputy Nichols that he wanted to clear the fence row before spring planting, but that was two or three months away.

A person acts recklessly, the appellate court said, when with heedless indifference to the consequences, he or she disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person’s 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 or she disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

The Court of Appeals noted that other defendants had been found reckless where their actions, like Dick Lavy’s, continued after they learned of a dispute about the activity. The same, the Court said, was true here.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, March 29, 2024

Posted on March 29, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

DOWN ON THE FARM

It may be spring break in a lot of place, but Ohio is about to take you to school, even if it’s only about tree law. We have some thinking people here in Ohio (we think). Just to prove the Buckeye State’s arboreal mettle, we’re going to spend the next three days talking about a single Ohio case, a lengthy decision that’s a veritable final exam in tree law.

This Ohio appellate court decision answers some tough questions, questions such as: If the Massachusetts Rule lets me trim encroaching tree branches and roots up to my property line, what duty do I as the trimmer have to the trimmee? Or, how do I maximize my damages (if I’m the plaintiff) or minimize them (if I’m the defendant)? Or, what method may I have to use to trim back to the property line?

Serious questions, indeed. So we’ll leave collapsing bridges and Trump legal cases and Ukraine aid and immigration and climate change to others, and travel to sunny Darke County, where megafarmer Dick Levy has just had one of his farmhands trim a property-line fencerow by ripping down offending branches with a trackhoe. He claims the Massachusetts Rule lets him use anything short of tactical nuclear weapons to vindicate his tree-trimming rights (pay attention, Vladimir Putin).

The Court, however, is more cautious…

Monday, we’ll look at whether farmer Lavy’s trespass onto his neighbor’s land was negligent or reckless. Finally, we’ll get to the question of damages.

Brewer v. Dick Lavy Farms, LLC, 67 N.E.2d 196, 2016-Ohio-4577 (Ct.App. Darke Co., June 24, 2016). In 2007, James Brewer bought about 70 acres of rural property for $180,000. About 30 acres of the land were tillable, and 40 acres were wooded. The only access to the tillable and wooded property was a 25-foot wide lane of about 3,600 feet in length.

A trackhoe removing a tree… rather a blunt instrument.

In January 2013, Dick Lavy ordered an employee to clear the fencerow between the two properties. At the time, Lavy understood that he could clear brush straight up and down the property line, and that such clearing was important for crop production, yield and safety for farm equipment. Using a trackhoe, which had an arm that could reach about 15 feet in the air, the employee reached up, grabbed limbs, and pulled on them, trying to break them off cleanly. Although the employee tried to keep the trackhoe on DLF’s side of the property, occasionally a branch would snap off or tear the tree on Brewer’s side. Occasionally, a branch would fall on Brewer’s side, and the employee would reach over to grab the branch, but he never consciously reached over with the bucket to try and break a branch at the tree trunk on Brewer’s side of the property.

When Brewer learned that DLF was clearing the fencerow, he went out to look at the operation and called the sheriff. At that point, the trackhoe was about halfway down the fencerow, destroying trees. A Darke County Sheriff’s Deputy told Lavy that a complaint had been made, and expressed his concern that civil or criminal issues could be involved in what he was doing. Lavy said that he had a right to take down any branches that were hanging over his property. In addition, Lavy said he would let Brewer remove the branches if Brewer wanted to do so, but he wanted the branches removed before crop season began in March or April.

The deputy told Brewer that Lavy claimed the right to take tree branches from his side and that if Brewer did not like the way he was doing it, Brewer could cut them himself. Brewer told the deputy that he was going to have an expert look at the trees. The deputy filed a report with the prosecutor’s office, but no charges were brought.

Within days after the damage occurred, Brewer’s wife took photos of the damaged trees. Three months later, Brewer and an arborist counted 326 damaged trees.

Brewer sued Dick Lavy Farms, alleging (1) a violation of O.R.C. § 901.51; (2) reckless trespass; and (3) and negligent trespass. Prior to trial, the court held that Brewer was not limited to damages for diminution in value, and the court would apply a standard that allowed recovery of the costs of restoration.

A chainsaw would have given a cleaner cut, but they are dangerous.

The Court found for Brewer, awarding him $148,350 in damages, including treble damages of $133,515.

Dick Lavy Farms appealed.

Held: The Massachusetts Rule is not a license to maim and maul.

DLF argued it had a common law privilege to sever or eliminate Brewer’s overhanging branches in any manner that it desired, and that the trial court nullified the privilege by holding that DLF could not cause breakage that impacts the tree on the other side of the property line. DLF argued this holding “emasculates the common law privilege and creates a conflict between O.R.C. section 901.51 and a property owner’s constitutional rights.”

Section 901.51 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that:

No 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 or upon public land. In addition to the penalty provided in section 901.99 of the Revised Code, whoever violates this section is liable in treble damages for the injury caused.

The Court agreed that “a privilege existed at common law, such that a landowner could cut off, sever, destroy, mutilate, or otherwise eliminate branches of an adjoining landowner’s tree that encroached on his land.” However, the Court said, “even in situations involving common law privilege, a landowner should not act in a manner as to cause damage to the property of an adjoining landowner. Thus, while a privilege exists, it is not absolute.”

The appellate panel said, “It is a well-recognized principle of common law that a landowner has the right to protect his own land from threatened injury, even though, in doing so, he produces a condition that injures adjoining land, provided he acts with reasonable care. Ohio has recognized the right of a property owner to use self-help in removing encroachments on his property. Other jurisdictions also recognize the right of an owner to remove any encroachment on his property which deprives him of the complete enjoyment of his land.”

The critical phrase, the Court held, is “reasonable care.” DLF’s privilege to remove encroachments was limited by the requirement that it use reasonable care not to injure neighboring property. By imposing a standard of recklessness, which requires a higher degree of fault, the Court said, O.R.C. § 901.51 does not interfere with the common law privilege. Owners have an absolute right to destroy any vegetation on their own side of the property. Liability attaches only where the owners’ actions create harm on the other side of the property line.

Farmer Lavy argued that the Massachusetts Rule meant he didn’t have to think.

Thus, an owner must use reasonable care when exercising his or her rights under the Massachusetts Rule.

We should note that two judges concurred in the judgment, arguing that there is no duty of reasonable care required by a property owner when protecting his or her own property from encroaching vegetation. The dissenters said the owner “may cut, mutilate, decimate, pulverize or obliterate branches or roots which infringe upon her property from a neighbor’s trees or plants. Self-help is permitted to remove trees or plants. What she cannot do is intrude into the neighbor’s property in doing so. That is why liability is imposed here. Tearing off branches on the DLF property that extended into the Brewer property, severing the branches at the trunk or some other point on the Brewer property, constituted an intrusion and trespass across the property line into the Brewer property, regardless of any degree of care or lack thereof.”

The dissenters drew “a distinction between removal of encroaching vegetation, where self-help is universally accepted, and removal of structures, building or fences, where self-help is often unacceptable.” Curiously, they noted that it “seems likely that a landowner could not chemically treat or poison the roots or limbs that encroach upon her property if that method of destruction will migrate to that portion of the vegetation on the neighbor’s yard and destroy the tree or shrub altogether, but that is an issue for another day.”

– Tom Root