ILNews

Court rules on duty of care for healthy trees in residential areas

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reiterated its stance that urban or residential area landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions regarding their own trees, healthy or otherwise, and make sure they don’t harm a neighbor’s property based on the size and where they are planted.

A unanimous ruling today in Stephen M. Scheckel v. NLI, Inc., No. 02A04-1010-SC-645, reanalyzes an issue that the intermediate appellate court has dealt with regularly in past years and last addressed more than a year ago.

The root of the Allen County case is a dispute between property owner Stephen Scheckel and neighboring property owner NLI over damage caused by a tree. Scheckel lives next to a lot separated by a chain-link fence. A tree planted nearby grew into the fence and its roots grew under the sidewalk and damaged both the fence and pavement, leaving the fence gate unusable and the walkway cracked and buckled. The cost to remove the tree and repair the damage was $2,510, according to the court records. Scheckel complained to the property owner, NLI, about the damage, but NLI didn’t take any action and Scheckel filed a small claims complaint on negligence and nuisance theories.

After a bench trial, the judge granted judgment in favor of NLI on the grounds that the size and placement of the tree caused the damage to the fence and walkway and the landowner isn’t liable for harm caused outside the land by a natural condition of the land.

But the trial judge erred in that decision, the appellate panel found, based on the evolution of natural conditions common law theory during the past 20 years.

Relying on its March 2010 ruling in Marshall v. Erie Ins. Exch., 923 N.E.2d 18,22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), the appeals judges focused on the exception to the natural condition rule created by the Indiana Supreme Court two decades ago. Agreeing with what other states have held, the Indiana panel in Marshall moved away from a strict application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts when it came to urban and residential properties.

Specifically, the appellate court disagreed with the finding that the tree’s healthy condition didn’t pose an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners because it wasn’t an unhealthy or dead tree – something that past cases have focused on. This is the first case in which the Court of Appeals has analyzed the natural rule exceptions in the context of a healthy tree, and the judges found no difference.

“As noted in Marshall, in urban or residential areas, placing a duty on the landowners to inspect his or her property and take reasonable precautions against dangerous natural conditions is not an undue burden,” Judge James Kirsch wrote. “Property lots in urban or residential settings are much smaller in size – putting neighboring landowners much closer in proximity – and thus, the burden of time and money to inspect and secure trees on those properties is relatively minor compared to the potential damage that could result from a defective tree. As such, we hold that an urban or residential landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect neighbors from the risk of personal injury or property damage caused by a tree growing upon the landowner’s property. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the natural condition rule of the Restatement bars the plaintiff’s recovery.”

The Indiana Supreme Court hasn’t addressed this issue specifically since it ruled on a natural conditions rule issue in 1991, and the justices denied transfer on Marshall in December.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT