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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT