Comment by lazide
4 days ago
If they are aware of a dangerous situation (diseased trees), and don’t do something about it, they are definitely on the hook for property damage caused by that negligence.
It would boil down to their degree of plausible deniability, ‘state priviledge’, and the specifics of the law and precedent in their state of course.
Good luck
The situation described says nothing about diseased trees. It says "I live next to a forest and trees fall."
I bet you the tree would show signs of disease if examined, unless this was during some exceptional event.
I maintain timberland, a percent of dead and diseased trees are normal. It is highly unlikely, at least in the species I’m familiar with, that a tree will just fall over.
Evolution tends to select against that kind of thing.
Notably, parks get sued pretty frequently when trees drop limbs on people or trees fall on folks stuff, under exactly this principle. It works too.
> It is highly unlikely, at least in the species I’m familiar with, that a tree will just fall over. > > Evolution tends to select against that kind of thing.
This is correct when the trees are bordered on all sides by more trees. On the forest edge - which is what this seems to be - things tend to be different though and the occasional tree does fall due to storm, rock slides, wildlife activities, water erosion and more. Especially when the forest edge is relatively new, i.e. the bordering land has been cleared somewhere within the last 40-50 years these edge effects can be sizeable. Eventually the forest edge thins out once the larger trees have all fallen to create a more gradual progression from open land to forest and there will be fewer large trees to fall on bordering land.
Yes, but there is generally not a requirement to inspect trees. Even a tree being dead is not sufficient to prove negligence. Dead trees don’t fall over immediately.
1 reply →