Postby dolfan » October 21st, 2008, 4:20 am
Trees: If a tree falls due to a condition or activity that the owner knows or should know is likely to cause harm to another's property or person, the owner of that tree is liable for the damage caused by the tree's fall.
Now, let's take a situation where a tree just falls. This happened twice in recent months near my home. I was outside pressure washing my driveway one Saturday this summer when my neighbor's tree suddenly just collapsed without warning and grazed his roof. No damage but to the tree, fortunately. About a month ago, a large, very old oak tree downtown in someone's yard fell over and took out a traffic light. No storms in either case. In both cases, the trees had decay inside that many are attributing to the drought conditions in Alabama for past 18 months or so.
Here's the deal: Drought causes trees to die slowly and from the inside and they will fall although they appear healthy on the outside. That's scary. An argument may be made, in Alabama and other southeastern states who've suffered through the dry conditions, that a reasonable person should have known that all trees were sufficiently at risk to have an inspection by a tree expert. That's called "constructive notice", in other words you should've known even if you didn't actually know. And, constructive knowledge is every bit the amount of knowledge as actual knowledge when it comes to law. So, while the results may vary in every case, people in the south have some years ahead where tree falls are going to cause more property damage. In such cases, expect to hear or invoke the you-should-have-known argument. Whether it flies in any case is all dependent on the facts of each case.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).