Case of the Day – Friday, December 12, 2025

Posted on December 12, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT

Originally a phrase used in the computer programming world, “garbage in, garbage out” was just too useful an aphorism to stay in Silicon Valley.

Today’s case illustrates the aphorism. One sanitation worker was backing up a garbage truck while the other, the son of a spelling-challenged mother named Kert Seymour, was holding onto a platform on the back. The truck veered too close to a tree growing along the boulevard, and strap-hanger Kert bashed his hand between the truck and the tree trunk.

If you have not studied the law (having instead favored more useful pursuits), you might think that garbageman Kert had only himself to blame for not moving his hand as the tree trunk approached. Or maybe blame the driver, who should have kept the truck farther from the tree. That’s much too logical.

There are two problems with your thinking. First, Kert couldn’t very well sue himself. There was no money there. Likewise, he could not collect much from his co-worker driver, who, if he had a lot of money, probably would not be driving a garbage truck. The employer, who owned the truck, was immune from liability to sanitation worker Kert except for whatever amount workers’ compensation would pay. Which clearly wasn’t enough to satisfy Kert.

So what to do? The answer is obvious. You sue the homeowner’s association that owned the private road on which the accident happened, arguing that if it had not planted the tree where it did, the accident could have been avoided.

If you’re a plaintiff’s lawyer, this is how you follow the money. There’s just one problem: how do you convince a jury to overlook the fool who didn’t pay attention, or the driver who couldn’t back straight, in favor of the association that owned the tree?

The three essential elements of negligence are (1) the negligent party must owe a duty to the injured party; (2) the negligent party must have breached its duty; and (3) as a direct result of that breach, the injured party must have been actually damaged.

Before negligence can be determined, the extent of the defendant’s duty to the injured has to be defined. That was the issue in this case.

Alleging that the defendant breached a duty to sanitation worker Kert by letting a tree grow was “garbage in.” Unsurprisingly, Kert got “garbage out.” You’d think he would have known that’s how garbage works.

Seymour v. Lakewood Hills Association, 927 S.W.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division, 1996). Kert Seymour (whose spelling skills obviously landed him in his chosen occupation) was a sanitation worker. Kert was riding on the back of a garbage truck when his co-worker, who was backing the truck down a private residential street, hit a tree standing in the boulevard. Kert’s hand was crushed between the truck and the tree.

The road was owned and maintained by the Lakewood Hills Association, so, naturally, Kert sued the Association for planting the tree where his co-worker could dash his hand against it. After all, while its connection to the accident seemed tenuous, the Association did have something no other likely defendant had: money.

The trial court said Kert’s position was garbage, and granted summary judgment for the Association. Kert appealed.

Held: The Court of Appeals held the Association owed Kert nothing.

Under Missouri law, if a condition on the property is so open and obvious that an invitee should reasonably be expected to discover it and realize the danger, the landowner does not breach its standard of care unless it should anticipate the potential harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. The failure to protect an invitee like Kert against conditions that are open and obvious as a matter of law does not fall below the applicable standard of care.

Lakewood Hills argued the tree in the center of the road was so open and obvious that a person should reasonably be expected to see it and recognize the danger posed. Both Kert and his co-worker admitted that they knew the tree was there. Kert stated that he had seen it many times when collecting trash. The tree being clearly visible from the end of the street, common sense dictates that a reasonable person would have appreciated the harm likely to occur should a vehicle strike the tree.

The Court held that “as a matter of law, that the dangerous condition presented by the tree was open and obvious.” In other words, Kert, if you remain vigilant while the truck is moving, you might Seymour.

The Court consigned Kert’s lawsuit to the dustbin of litigation. Which Kert probably emptied. One-handed.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, November 21, 2025

Posted on November 21, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

YOU HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME

I just got back from a week in London. The primary reason for the trip was so we could see our granddaughters. They live in London these days (with our son and daughter-in-law, but once the grandkids arrive, your children become an afterthought).

While there, I rented a car and tried English driving for the first time. That is my segue into today’s topic, the very English common-law tort of negligence.

Negligence is a tort law concept borrowed from the English and a living, breathing description of my adventures in a four-door, manual-shift Skoda. To prove negligence, one either needs a photo of me in the driver’s seat navigating a roundabout, or one must prove three essential elements The negligent party must owe a duty to the injured party, the negligent party must have breached its duty, and as a direct result of that breach, the injured party must have been actually damaged. Surprisingly, most of the litigation on tree-related negligence results from questions of the extent of the duty owed to the injured party.

The bulk of negligence actions related to trees result from trees or branches falling on people and property. The states are nearly uniform in holding that a property owner who has actual or constructive notice of a defect in his or her trees has a duty to the owners of adjoining property and the public who may be passing by to ensure that the tree does not injure persons or property.

Actual notice is fairly self-explanatory. A landowner who has been told that a tree is defective has actual notice. However, constructive notice is much more nuanced. Visual evidence of decay, a history of falling branches, advice of an arborist or tree professional that a tree poses a hazard – all of these may be enough for a court to find that a property owner was on constructive notice of a defect. Some cases have suggested that if a tree professional installs cabling or bracing to support a tree, that fact alone is constructive notice to the landowner of a serious defect in a tree.

Even if evidence of decay or distress is not clear from the ground, some courts have held that landowners have a general duty to regularly inspect trees on their property that may cause damage or injury if they fall. Most states recognize two levels of landowner duty. A rural property owner, because the size of the land holdings is generally larger than in urban areas and because there is a lesser concentration of people and property to be injured, has a duty to inspect that is significantly lesser in scope than the duty of a urban landowner. An urban landowner usually has fewer trees, and those have a greater likelihood of causing injury or damage if they fall. Thus, what is an adequate inspection program for a rural landowner may not be enough for an urban property holder.

Generally, before negligence can be determined, the extent of the defendant’s duty to the injured has to be defined. The great illustration can be taken from today’s case:

Sellens v. Christman, 418 S.W.2d 6 (Sup. Ct. Missouri, 1967). Elvin Christman had invited Jim Sellens to go out with him to try out his new chainsaw. They tacked some trees in the woods, and promptly dropped the first one into a notch on a second one. Jim concluded the lodged tree was safe, and was cutting a second tree near it when the whole thing gave way. The lodged tree collapsed on Jim, causing the loss of a leg. Elvin was nowhere nearby at the time.

Nevertheless, Jim sued Elvin.

The trial court held that Jim had not established that Elvin was at fault for the accident. In fact, there was no evidence that anyone other than Jim was at fault for the accident. But Jim tried to get a leg up by appealing. The case found its way to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Held: Jim didn’t have a leg to stand on.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal but focused more on the duty that Elvin owed to Jim. It held that Jim was an invitee, meaning that Elvin had a duty to take ordinary care to prevent injury to Jim, more care than if Jim were a mere trespasser.

Although Jim’s status was an invitee, the Court said there was no breach of any duty by Elvin to make the premises safe for Jim or to warn him of the danger. “The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies only to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like,” the Court reasoned, “in that they are not known to the invitee, and would not be observed by him in the exercise of ordinary care. The invitee assumes all normal, obvious, or ordinary risks attendant on the use of the premises, and the owner or occupant is under no duty to reconstruct or alter the premises so as to obviate known and obvious dangers.”

You have only yourself to blame, Jim.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Posted on October 1, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES

I found myself wondering the other day, as I mentioned an allegation of trespass in a post, whether we talk about basic garden-variety trespass often enough. So here we are.

The United States inherited the law of trespass from medieval England. At common law, a trespass upon land occurred when a person, acting without authority, physically invades or unlawfully enters the premises of another, and damages result (even though the damages may be insignificant). The entry may be intentional or negligent. Just about every entry onto the land of another that occurs happens due to negligence, because it requires remarkably little negligence to accomplish a trespass.

I watched a lot of football this past weekend, starting with high school football on Friday night, as my beloved Norwalk Truckers eked out a win against the Vermilion Sailors, 14-9. Saturday afternoon, my bride of 46 years and I watched our No. 1 Ohio State Buckeyes – we went to OSU, so we have a right to be Scarlet and Gray fans – convincingly beat the U-W Huskies. Sunday, I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to watch the Cleveland Browns lose to the Detroit Lions, 32-10. Well, disappointed maybe, but hardly shocked.

As football weekends go, Meatloaf described it musically: two out of three ain’t bad.

But because I have football on my mind, let me liken trespass to catching a pass on the inbounds white line. If you deliberately run out of bounds and then catch the pass, the pass is no good. Call it trespass. If you catch one right on the line, and your foot accidentally steps on the white line as you catch it, the pass is no good. It’s still trespass.

If you catch a pass in bounds, and – while you’re in the air catching it – a defender wraps you up and carries you out of bounds, however, the pass is complete. It’s not a trespass.

In other words, you can intentionally trespass. You can negligently trespass. But if your body is deposited on someone else’s land through involuntary means, it’s not a trespass.

Trespass is most commonly asserted by people who have lost trees to a misguided tree cutter taking timber on the wrong side of an unclear or misunderstood property line. It has also been applied where people took self-help a little too far, and went onto neighboring property to aggressively trim a problem tree. Trespass has been found where people mistakenly believed they owned the property they had occupied, where a party has negligently caused livestock or water to enter another’s land, and where someone was on the property with permission to cut down certain trees, but cut down trees he had been told to avoid.

Muir v. Ruder, 945 S.W.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, 4^th Div. 1997). Jim Ruder, a landscaper, agreed to buy trees on the Muirs’ property. Ruder was to remove the trees and pay $6.00 a tree. He also agreed to transplant 120 trees for Muir, and repair any ruts or holes created in the process. The deal went south, as such deals sometimes do, and the Muirs sued. They said Ruder had committed trespass by breaking the contract and then entering the property and unlawfully removing about 220 trees. Ruder said he only took 130 trees, and the rest were stolen by persons unknown. He admitted he didn’t pay for any trees, fill in ruts or holes, or transplant any trees. He claimed he told the Muirs he didn’t have the right equipment to move the specific trees they wanted transplanted.

The trial court agreed that Ruder had trespassed, and awarded the Muirs $6,160 in damages.

The Court of Appeals reversed, providing some basic guidance on the law of trespass in the process. It said the evidence failed to prove the elements of either trespass or conversion. Common-law trespass, the Court said, is the unauthorized entry by a person upon land of another. For damages to be awarded for trespass, a plaintiff has to show that the defendant intended to be on the property and that he directly interfered physically with that property. Removing trees from someone else’s property may also be a statutory trespass. A person can wrongfully cut down a tree in two ways, either of which would result in trespass under § 537.340 RSMo. He can enter the land without permission and cut down the trees. Alternatively, he can enter with the owner’s consent and then exceed the scope of the consent by cutting down trees without permission.

Here, the Court found, Muir – wisely or not – had given Ruder permission to enter his property. Muir argued that the agreement was broken because the landscaper removed the first batch of trees, but did not transplant the trees Muir wanted moved. Ruder testified that he had already removed the first trees before he realized that the trees Muir wanted transplanted were too large for his equipment. Ruder nevertheless returned to the property for more trees. Muir said he “objected” when Ruder took the second load before paying for the first load, but he didn’t tell Ruder to leave or to bring the first load of trees back. Instead, he watched Ruder take the second load and even had Ruder show him how to bag trees. The Court said, “One who silently watches another enter upon his land, and then willingly engages him in conversation while standing on the premises, may not later complain of trespass.”

More high school football coming up tomorrow. Go, Truckers!

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, May 1, 2025

Posted on May 1, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

DEDICATED TO THE ONE I LOVE

Courts of appeal sit mostly to determine how the law should apply to facts. Usually, when a trial court decides a legal question, a court of appeals will give a fresh look to the issue, called “de novo” review. You Latin scholars will recall that this literally means “of new.” Think “fresh look.”

Not so with facts. Whether the trial court got the facts right is something that seldom worries an appellate court. Usually, the appellate court won’t alter a trial court’s factual finding unless it’s clearly wrong. This is known generally as the “clearly erroneous” standard.

The different states and the Federal government apply slightly different standards of review to different types of cases, and generalizing may be useful for our purposes, but not for real life. Still, as a rule, appellate courts treat trial courts’ findings of fact with great deference. Today’s case is one of those decisions that makes you wonder why they should.

The Tinnes had owned a lakefront resort for years and used a private road, Corewood Lane, for their guests to have access to the beachfront property. When they retired, the couple sold all of the place except for a small piece on the north side, where they built a retirement home.

The Brands tore up the asphalt a bit…

Their golden-age digs had a driveway that attached to Corewood Lane. The new resort owners, the Brands, promptly began obstructing Corewood Lane, even tearing out big chunks of the asphalt. Finally being roused from their retired reverie by the Brands’ unfriendly conduct, which even included the Brands trimming trees on the Tinnes’ property, the retired couple sued for a judgment that Corewood Lane had become a public road by implied dedication. They asked for an injunction against future obstruction and treble damages for the cut tree limbs.

The trial court obliged on a record that was pretty thin. It ordered that Corewood was public, told the Branches to repave it, pay $10,000 to the Tinnes for having obstructed it, and $250 (which it trebled to $750) for having trimmed the Tinnes’ trees without permission.

The Court of Appeals reversed it all.

It turned out that Mrs. Tinnes had herself testified that she and her husband had never intended Corewood to be a public street. The landowner’s intent is the most crucial element in an implied dedication of a private road as a public one. What’s more, no one bothered to introduce any evidence of the amount of damage that had been caused by the trespass and pruning of the Tinnes’ trees, and at any rate, Missouri’s treble damage statute related to cutting down trees, not just pruning them. To be sure, damages are presumed when a trespass is proven, but the damages that are awarded are nominal – think “symbolic and puny” – unless actual harm is shown.

And how much was nominal in this case? The Court of Appeals cut the damage award to one dollar. About enough for one-eighth of a Starbucks Mocha Cookie Crumble Frappucchino.

One is left to wonder what evidence the trial court was weighing when it throttled the Brands to begin with. It would appear that the trial judge decided the case with his heart, not his head.

Tinnes v. Brand, 248 S.W.3d 113 (Mo.App. S.D. 2008). Corewood Lane runs through property once owned by the Tinnes but now owned by the Brands. When they owned the land, Mr. and Mrs. Tinnes ran a lakefront resort on the property. Corewood Lane was the access road through their property to the resort site and lakefront. When the Tinneses sold the resort in 1996, they retained four acres on the property’s north side, where they built a home and a driveway leading to Corewood Lane.

As soon as they bought the resort, the Brands started obstructing Corewood Lane with tree limbs, boats, and open ditches. They also removed asphalt pieces (which they claimed were broken) from the paved road, after which parts of the road eroded and washed away. They even trimmed some tree limbs on the Tinnes property.

The Tinneses sued for a declaratory judgment that Corewood Lane was “a road easement for Plaintiffs, and the public,” or alternatively that plaintiffs had the right to use it as an easement appurtenant to their residential property. They also sought an injunction requiring the Brands to repair the road and not damage or obstruct it in the future, plus actual and punitive damages. The trial court found that the entire length of Corewood Lane was dedicated to the public for use as a roadway; ordered the Brands to repair and repave the road at their own expense; enjoined them from interfering with the use of the road by plaintiffs or the public; awarded $100 actual damages against the Brands for obstructing and damaging the road; and awarded trespass damages of $250, “trebled according to law” to $750, for the Brands’ cutting of trees and limbs on the Tinnes’ property.

The Brands appealed.

The Tinnes didn’t need a formal street dedication … but if they had actually intended to dedicate the street, it would have helped …

Held: The decision was reversed because the evidence didn’t support a finding that Corewood Lane had been dedicated to public use.

To show implied or common-law dedication of a roadway, a plaintiff must prove (1) the landowner’s unequivocal intent to dedicate the land to public use; (2) public acceptance; and (3) public use. Intent must be unequivocally manifested, expressly or by plain implication. Here, plaintiff Deanna Tinnes herself denied on the stand that they had ever intended to dedicate the lane to public use. The Court held that the record did not “convincingly demonstrate” that any landowner meant to create public rights in Corewood Lane adverse to the owner’s own rights.

As for the $250.00 trespass award, “trebled according to law” to $750.00, the Court of Appeals held that the Brands had only cut tree limbs, not any whole trees, and neither party presented evidence as to damages. However, the Brands admitted the trespass, and the Tinnes were entitled to nominal damages, even if they proved no actual damage. Because the trial court awarded $100.00 for the Corewood Lane access damages, the Court of Appeals said that the $250.00 damages for the trespass could hardly be called nominal.

The Court ordered damages for the tree trimming to be reduced to $1.00.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Posted on February 11, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

DAMNED IF YOU DO…

Yesterday, we read about Mamie Segraves, who successfully sued an electric utility because its workers determined that trees within its easement posed a risk to the distribution lines and that one should be removed and the other topped.

Segraves taught us that in Missouri, a utility company’s judgment that a tree needs to be removed does not mean much if the homeowner wants it preserved. Today, from the Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t Department comes another Missouri decision, in which a utility is held liable because the landowner wanted a tree in the easement area removed, but the utility did not see the need.

When Greg Fenlon noticed a hazard tree he believed threatened his local power grid, he called the electric company. Its crews, unfortunately, were uninterested in taking direction from Greg and, to make matters worse, they did not perform their duties much to Greg’s liking. He wanted the hazard tree removed. They demurred.

After the crew headed off for coffee and doughnuts, Greg hired a crew that would take direction from him (because he was paying them). Greg’s crew removed the tree, and Greg sent the bill to Union Electric. Union sent it back.

Greg was as serious about litigation as he was about tree removal. He sued Union Electric for the cost of his tree-cutting crew. And he got further than you might think.

Fenlon v. Union Electric Co., 266 S.W.3d 852 (Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, 2008). Greg Fenlon was not a guy to let a job go undone. When he noticed a dangerous tree interfering with Union Electric wires, he contacted the utility to report it. Union Electric sent a couple of men in a truck, who trimmed back a few branches but refused Greg’s demand that they cut down the hazardous tree (despite the fact it was inside the utility’s easement). So Greg did the job himself, hiring a contractor to cut down the tree. He then sued the utility for the cost of the removal.

The trial court dismissed Greg’s claim, and he appealed.

Held: Greg’s suit was reinstated.

The Court observed that suppliers of electricity must exercise the highest degree of care to maintain their wires in such condition as to prevent injury, citing the Missouri Supreme Court’s Gladden case. However, the Court said, “Nothing in Gladden limits the exercise of the highest degree of care solely to the trimming of branches that are either touching or close to wires. Rather, the focus in Gladden is on the likelihood of injury and prevention thereof.”

The key issue here, the Court said, was whether the hazard tree created an unreasonable risk of injury, and that was a question of fact. If it did, then Greg’s self-help in the Union Electric easement should be paid by the utility.

The trial court was in error when it effectively determined a question of fact question on a motion to dismiss. Greg’s pleadings were adequate to state a cause of action, so the matter had to go back to trial.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, February 10, 2025

Posted on February 10, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

HERE WE CUT DOWN THE MULBERRY BUSH…

When Mamie’s lights went out, she called the electric company to fix them. The linemen tracked down the problem and fixed it while Mamie was off at Wal-Mart. But while they were there and Mamie wasn’t, the electric workers saw an excellent opportunity to saw… and to get rid of some trees in the utility’s easement across Mamie’s yard that they thought were in the way of the distribution line to Mamie’s house.

Mamie returned, shopping bags in hand, to find her mulberry tree had been cut down and cherry tree topped. Naturally, she sued. After all, her trees had not caused the power outage. Nevertheless, the electric company said the tree could have caused the power loss, but for the grace of God, and it relied on its easement to support its right to remove the one tree and permanently stunt the other out of concern that someday they might pose a hazard.

I would have bet a new chainsaw that the electric company was going to win this one, and I can only conclude that it may have been “homered” by the local judge. After all, Mamie was a neighbor, and the big, bad electric co-op was just some faceless out-of-towner. I know of no other way (than possibly an inability to read precedent and engage in reasoned thought) to justify a holding that while the utility had an easement, as well as the duty to maintain the reliability of its lines, it nonetheless could not merely be liable for overzealous trimming but even be socked with treble damages.

Treble damages are only appropriate in Missouri if the malefactor lacks probable cause to believe it owned the land the tree stood on. That test should have been modified to comport with the facts. Consolidated had an easement for the electric lines to cross Mamie’s property, and whether its decision to trim or remove the trees near its lines was correct or not, the decision should have been accorded deference.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at a subsequent Missouri electric company case, where we will see the utility get clobbered despite its desperate reliance on today’s holding.

Segraves v. Consolidated Elec. Coop., 891 S.W.2d 168 (Ct.App. Missouri, 1995). Mamie Segraves sued Consolidated Electric Co-op – her electricity provider – after one of its linemen cut down her mulberry tree and “topped off” her cherry tree.

One summer day, Mamie awoke to find that her electricity was off. She left to go shopping at 9 a.m., and when she returned two hours later, the lights were back on. However, the mulberry and cherry trees in her front yard had been cut down and one branch of her elm tree had been cut off.

Mamie testified these trees had never interfered with her electrical service before. In the past, Consolidated had asked to trim the trees around her electric lines, and she had always agreed, but it had not done so in the past six years. Mamie estimated the value of the mulberry tree was $2,000.00, and the value of the cherry tree was $500.00.

Mitch Hurt, a senior lineman with Consolidated, testified he was called to handle an electrical outage. He tracked the outage to a problem with one of the lines near Mamie’s home, but he could not pinpoint the problem. He had to drive down the road and look at the individual lines to try to find the problem. When he passed the line leading up to her house, he could not see the transformer pole. He stopped and went to inspect her service. He noticed her mulberry tree was very close to the transformer, and so he cut it down “to get it away from the transformer pole.” He also cut off the entire top of a nearby cherry tree because its branches had all grown towards the line. He felt these branches presented a safety hazard because children could easily climb them and reach the power lines. Mitch admitted it may not have been necessary to cut down either of these trees to reinstate electrical service.

Bob Pogue, Jr., Mitch’s boss, testified he told Mitch to trim as much of the trees as he thought was necessary. Bob Jahn, Consolidated’s general manager, testified Mamie knew about the location of the electric lines when she bought the place.

The trial court found in Mamie’s favor and assessed treble damages. Consolidated appealed.

Held: The Co-op had no right to cut the trees, and treble damages were proper.

The trial court did not find Consolidated to be a trespasser because it had the right to enter onto Mamie’s premises to maintain the electric lines. The right to remove limbs that have fallen onto the lines, however, “does not extend to cutting down trees or ‘topping’ trees that are not presently interfering with electrical service without prior consultation with the property owner.” While the mulberry and the cherry trees probably needed to be trimmed, the trial court said, there was no evidence that the mulberry “needed to be cut to a stump and that the cherry needed to be cut back to its major trunks, eliminating all of the fruit-bearing branches.”

Section 537.340 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri allowing for treble damages for the destruction of trees, does not require that a party wrongfully enter upon the property. In fact, the Court of Appeals said, Mamie can recover for wrongfully cutting down trees if she can establish either that Consolidated wrongfully entered her land and cut down the trees, or Consolidated entered her land with consent but exceeded the scope of the consent by cutting down the trees without permission.

While it is true, as Consolidated argued, that a license may be converted into an easement by estoppel if the license holder can establish it spends a great deal of time and money to secure enjoyment of its use, the scope of such an easement nevertheless will be determined by the meaning and intent that the parties give to it. The Court found no history between the parties of cutting down trees, and nothing from which such a right to cut down trees can be implied. Thus, even if Consolidated did acquire an easement by estoppel, it exceeded the scope of the easement by cutting down Mamie’s mulberry and cherry trees.

The utility also argued it was required by law to trim or remove the trees to ensure safety. Under the National Electrical Safety Code, Consolidated argued, it was required to trim or remove trees that may interfere with ungrounded supply conductors should be trimmed or removed, and where that was not practical, the conductor should be separated from the tree with proper materials to avoid damage by abrasion and grounding of the circuit through the tree. Consolidated maintained it had the authority to remove Mamie’s trees according to the Code because there was substantial evidence showing limbs of both trees had been burned by electricity, the mulberry tree was blocking the transformer pole, and the children living nearby could have easily climbed either tree and reached the live electric wires.

The Court rejected that, holding that Consolidated failed to show that the Code applied here because it failed to present evidence that the electrical wires leading to Mamie’s home were “ungrounded supply conductors.” Further, even if the Code applied, it gives electric companies two options, to trim or to remove the trees. The trial court found it was unnecessary to remove the trees in this case.

Not to be deterred, Consolidated also argued it was obligated to remove the trees because it had a non-delegable duty to maintain a safe clearance around its electrical lines. “Although Consolidated was required to exercise the highest degree of care in maintaining its electrical wires,” the Court said, “it was not required to remove the trees surrounding them, and it exceeded its authority by doing so.”

Section 537.340 of Missouri Revised Statutes holds that if any person shall cut down, injure, or destroy or carry away any tree placed or growing for use, shade, or ornament, or any timber, rails, or wood standing, being or growing on the land of any other person, the person so offending shall pay to the party injured treble the value of the things so injured, broken, destroyed, or carried away, with costs.

The Court noted that a person can only fell trees wrongfully in one of two ways: he can enter the land wrongfully and fell the trees, or he can enter with the landowner’s consent and then exceed the scope of that consent by felling trees without permission. While the statute limits damages recoverable to single damages in certain cases, such as where it appears the defendant has probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass is alleged to be committed, or that the thing so taken, carried away, injured, or destroyed, is his own. It was up to Consolidated to prove it had such probable cause.

The determination of whether the defendant proved probable cause existed rests with the trial judge. Here, the Court said, “the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding Consolidated did not have probable cause” to believe it had the right to cut down Mamie’s trees.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, November 4, 2024

Posted on November 4, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

ERR IN HASTE …

“Haste makes waste,” the old saw goes, and did it ever for the Warrens of Iron County, Missouri.

They finally realized their dream, buying land they had rented for years as cattle pasture for their dream home. First, logically enough, they wanted to mark the boundaries of the land. The Warrens asked their neighbors, the Hales, to pay for half of the survey, but the Hales declined. Why should they pay? They knew where their boundaries lay.

So the Warrens went ahead on their own. Their surveyor couldn’t find the section corner marker, which had been described in some 19th century surveys as laying certain distances on certain radials from streams and trees that weren’t there anymore. So he made his best guess, but didn’t use the technique provided for in Missouri law.

Hard to believe, but the surveyor blew it big time, marking a boundary that was way off the traditional boundaries used by the parties. In fact, his boundary included big chunks of the Hales’ land, such as their entire driveway, landscaping and front lawn and nearly their house. The day after the surveyor placed his little pink flags, Mrs. Hale complained to the Warrens that their surveyor was nuts, and she’d get another surveyor to straighten it all out. She even showed them some old 19th century abstracts, which clearly showed her ancestors had owned some of the land the Warrens now thought was theirs.

Even cousin Pug on the bulldozer had to wonder whether the surveyor’s lines weren’t just a little too optimistic …

Here’s where the Warrens blundered. Mrs. Hale might have been wrong, but her complaints, her intention to get another surveyor, and the Hales’ historical use and occupancy of the land the Warrens now thought was theirs was enough information to give a reasonable person some pause — at least for a few days while the issues were sorted out. But the Warrens weren’t the waitin’ type. They had a family member show up the next day with his bulldozer and start tearing up the Hales’ front yard and landscaping.

The Hales got an injunction, litigation ensued and another surveyor took a whack at the boundary. Oops. The Warrens’ surveyor screwed it up, the court said, failing to use the prescribed method for finding a corner where the original corner was lost. The disputed land really belonged to the Hales, and the Warrens — who had torn up things too quickly — were socked with treble damages under a Missouri statute applying where one destroyed trees or landscaping of another without probable cause to believe the land was his. The unseemly haste of the Warrens to bulldoze the disputed tract, where there seemed to be no need for such fast-track excavation, evidently played a role in the Court’s determination.

Act in haste, repent in leisure.

Hale v. Warren, 236 S.W.3d 687 (Mo.App. 2007). The Warrens bought 64 acres in Iron County, Missouri, that they had rented for the previous nine years, intending to build a home on the land and to continue to graze their cattle there. The Hales owned 80 acres or so next to the Warrens, land that had been in that family for over 150 years.

After buying the property, the Warrens wanted to have their property surveyed before beginning on the house, so they asked the Hales to share the cost of a survey. When the Hales refused, the Warrens went ahead on their own. Their surveyor determined that part of the Hales’ yard and their entire driveway lay on the Warrens’ property, as well as other areas. The surveyor marked the boundary with pink flags.

The next day, Mrs. Hale contacted Mrs. Warren about the pink flags, telling her that she disagreed with the survey, especially with one of the section corners from which measurements were taken. Nevertheless, the Warrens began bulldozing and clearing the land the next day, including right in front of the Hales’ home and along the western border of their property, within the area set out by the pink flags. By the next day, the Hales had obtained a temporary restraining order against the Warrens, barring them from “further bulldozing or other acts of destruction and possession …” The Hales then hired their own surveyor, who found that a section corner used in old surveys had been lost and — applying Missouri law — calculated a starting point by a procedure known as “double proportional measurement.” At the same time, they sued the Warrens to quiet title and for trespass.

The trial court found that the Hales owned Tracts 1, 2, and 3 by adverse possession, and that the Warrens’ survey was “not accurate and correct” but that the Hales’ survey was. The trial court entered a permanent injunction against the Warrens, prohibiting them from entering onto the land in question and assessing treble damages in favor of Hales under V.M.S.A. § 537.340 for $6,300.00. The Warrens appealed.

Held: The trial court was upheld. Much of the decision related to the appropriate use of the “double proportional measurement” system under Missouri law, an interesting if technical discussion. However, the Court’s treatment of the treble damages award in favor of Hales is relevant to arboriculture law. The Court agreed with the trial court that the Warrens lacked probable cause to believe that the property being bulldozed was their own.

Section 537.340 of the Missouri Code imposes treble damages for the wrongful cutting down of trees, without any showing of negligence or intent required. The Court observed that §537.340 “is a penal statute which must be strictly construed.” It is tempered by § 537.360, which holds that if defendant had probable cause to believe land was his own, plaintiff shall receive only single damages, with costs.”

Too bad the Warrens hadn’t read a lot of Moliere. He makes a good point.

A party would have ‘probable cause’ under the statute if there was such cause as would induce a reasonable person to believe he had the right to remove trees from another’s land. Here, the evidence showed the Hales’ driveway had always been at its present location and that the Hales had maintained the area since 1966 as part of their yard, planting trees and shrubbery in that area as well. The tracts had been owned by the Hales and their predecessors since 1855, and fencing had marked the boundary until the Warrens wrongfully removed it. The Hales had harvested timber and cut firewood on the disputed land since they purchased the property from their family in 1966.

After the pink flags were placed by the Warrens’ surveyor, Mrs. Hale showed Mr. Warren a land abstract in which her grandfather had deeded off a portion of the disputed land for a school building. She showed him the abstract to “show them that obviously this had been in our possession since the 1880’s. This particular tract of land that’s in dispute.” She told the Warrens that she disputed their survey and that she would speak to a surveyor herself.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence to rebut the Warrens’ assertions they removed the trees and landscaping at issue because they had probable cause to believe they owned the property. First, for all the years the Warrens had possessed the land as owners or renters, the Court said, it was only reasonable to conclude they should have become familiar with Hales’ general use of their property. Richard Warren admitted that when they purchased his property, he was aware that the Hales stored cars and maintained a large scrap metal pile on the land. Further, when they purchased the property, the Warrens were aware of the location of Hales’ driveway and yard and their generalized use of the land. Second, the Hales disputed the Warrens’ survey as soon as it was surveyed. Mrs. Hale informed the Warrens that she was contacting Smith & Company about the survey because she believed it was incorrect, and she showed them an old abstract relating to the prior use of the property. When the Warrens began bulldozing right away after their survey was done, it was clear that the Warrens knew of the Hales’ open and actual possession and use of the property, and knew that the Hales had issues with the survey lines at the time the bulldozing began.

The Court said it was “difficult… to believe that ‘a reasonable person’ would ‘believe he had the right to remove trees from another’s land,’ where he was faced with: a mowed yard and maintained driveway; areas that were clearly used by the landowner for storing scrap metal and other items; open protests and disputes by the landowner; and a survey which obviously did not comport with historically used property lines.” The Warrens did not meet their burden of proving they had probable cause to believe they owned the land in question at the time they bulldozed the trees and shrubs at issue.

– Tom Root