The issue was, as Judge Bender aptly put it in his Dissenting Opinion, "[i]f a tree falls on a busy road and injures someone, does it automatically sound in negligence?"
In this case, the court reaffirmed Pennsylvania law that holds that a landowner that allows trees to grow on the property unchecked can be held liable in negligence to motorists injured when a tree falls onto an adjacent road. The court noted that no visible defect in the tree or expert testimony is required. Rather, the standard is reasonable care under the circumstances.
The court noted that, if the condition of the tree could have been known by the exercise of ordinary care, then the Defendant landowner must exercise reasonable care to prevent the tree from falling and injuring anyone who may be using the adjacent road. The law puts the burden on the landowners given that the landowners have access to their own property and the passing motorists do not.
The court noted that the public right of passage on roadways carries with it once the highways have been established, and obligation on occupiers of abutting land to use reasonable care to ensure that the passage way is safe.
Landowners are not allowed to simply let nature take its course.
In this case, the court reaffirmed Pennsylvania law that holds that a landowner that allows trees to grow on the property unchecked can be held liable in negligence to motorists injured when a tree falls onto an adjacent road. The court noted that no visible defect in the tree or expert testimony is required. Rather, the standard is reasonable care under the circumstances.
The court noted that, if the condition of the tree could have been known by the exercise of ordinary care, then the Defendant landowner must exercise reasonable care to prevent the tree from falling and injuring anyone who may be using the adjacent road. The law puts the burden on the landowners given that the landowners have access to their own property and the passing motorists do not.
The court noted that the public right of passage on roadways carries with it once the highways have been established, and obligation on occupiers of abutting land to use reasonable care to ensure that the passage way is safe.
Landowners are not allowed to simply let nature take its course.
The Court otherwise rejected the notion that all motorists who use the roadways assume the risk of trees falling upon them.
This decision is also notable for the Superior Court’s noting that a Motion for Summary Judgment that was denied based upon the sufficiency of the evidence is superseded by the trial record and cannot be separately appealed once a verdict has been entered.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
This decision is also notable for the Superior Court’s noting that a Motion for Summary Judgment that was denied based upon the sufficiency of the evidence is superseded by the trial record and cannot be separately appealed once a verdict has been entered.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Judge Bender's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Mick Haupt on www.unsplash.com.