A small tornado passed through my town last week and downed numerous trees throughout the neighborhood. Two of my neighbors are now embroiled in a bitter argument regarding the removal of one specific tree. The tree was located on Neighbor A's property, immediately adjacent to the property line. The tornado uprooted the tree so that it now rests completely on Neighbor B's property. Neighbor A claims the damage was an Act of God, and since the tree no lomger resides on his property, he is not responsible for cleanup. Neighbor B claims neighbor A still owns the tree. Who's reponsible for the cleanup. -- Mediator

Reply to post by Rich Mausser, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

It matters not where the tree originated from. The cleanup costs are bourne by wherever the tree is lying.
verytreelylew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

I agree with Lew. However, every citizen has the right to take his or her neighbor top court in a civil action. Then it depends on the judge and/or jury.

Reply to post by lewbloch, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

The responsibility may be different for different jurisdictions and under different conditions. In the early 1980s, I was involved in a case where a client's tree uprooted and fell onto the neighbors property causing a small amount of damage to the house. In court (Delaware), the judge ruled the tree owner was responsible for the removal of the tree and debris, but the neighbor was responsible for the damages to his own property.

What bothered me was the tree was doing fine until the neighbor put in a driveway 20 feet from the tree, and caused water to back up and saturate the oak's root system. That led to root loss and armillaria, and 6 years after the drive was built, the tree toppled.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 11, 1999 at 17:48:45:

I can understand your case, Russ, and I was negligent in not mentioning that if there was some sort of negligence (such as your case or leaving up a hazard tree) then there will be a law suit. Usually the insurance companies will pay up and then subrogate or sue.

soryyboutthat,

verytreelylew

Reply to post by Rich Mausser, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

When I first started doing strom cleanup it always seemd funny that the owner of the tree was not resopnsible for damage and cleanup. After talking with my insurance agetn he had a good illustration of how the insurance companies look at the issue. Let's say that after a storm you find a willow limb poking out of your roof. Of course, you wnat to find out who owned the limb bfore you found it. You go out and look in all of the yards for a five block radius and don't find even one willow. What do you do? Your insurance pays. My agent sadi that it is understood that when a tree crosses a property line it becomes that owners responsibility.

Tom

Reply to post by Rich Mausser, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

1. I think there was an earlier thread that dealt with similar issues.

2. Be very careful about drawing generalizations from individual cases. Local laws, customs, fact patterns and judicial interpretations are endlessly variable. What is customary and expedient for insurance companies may vary from what the law might impose with no insurance and an aggressive legal pursuit. What applies in a widespread storm event (act of God/Nature) may certainly vary from what applies (ethically, reasonably or not) in an individual case where blame may be attached: witness the emergence of case law where the owner or the arborist who pruned the tree 10 years ago or maybe just gave a pruning estimate is found responsible for not discovering and predicting "hazard" and abating it before it fell onto other property and caused damage or injury.

If what might have been "common law" about where the tree lands being more important than where it came from really applied, would such damage awards have basis? Taken to the (il)logical extreme, can someone (other than God/Nature) be found responsible for every tree failure, simply through ownership or allowing it to exist?

These are really issues for the owner to resolve with competent legal advice in each instance. For the working arborist the real issues are: get written authorization from the owner before undertaking work on the owner's property, maybe even before stepping on the owner's property; get a written contract for payment from the person who hires you before undertaking work; make sure your compensation is not contingent on some insurance award which may not be forthcoming ("oh we cover what's on the structure only, not what's on the ground, we're not paying for that portion of the work").

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

I once worked on a job where a storm brought down a 4' dbh oak tree. The tree smashed acrossed our clients fence and leveled his neighbors covered porch. The only thing our client's insurance paid for was the removal of

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on August 11, 1999 at 09:08:19:

I once worked on a job where a storm brought down a 4' dbh oak tree. The tree smashed acrossed our clients fence and leveled his neighbors covered porch. The only thing our client's insurance paid for was the removal of 8'of the trunk. The exact length from the rootball to the fence. Although the neighbors insurance undoubtably paid for the rest.