Lauren E. Purcell

Landowners in urban areas have a legal responsibility to prevent foreseeable dangers posed by trees on their property. In a notable decision, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reinforced this duty by upholding a jury verdict against a property owner whose tree fell onto a passing motorist’s vehicle. The court rejected the argument that negligence required proof of a specific defect, instead emphasizing the landowner’s obligation to address hazardous conditions that could threaten public highways.

The defendant had a 110-year-old tree growing on a steep hillside of her property that was above a public highway. The plaintiff, a passing motorist on the highway, was injured when the tree plummeted onto his vehicle. The jury found the defendant negligent. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. 

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania disagreed with the defendant’s argument that without proof of defect, the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for negligence. The court found that “[t]o place such a burden upon a passing motorist would be nearly insurmountable, because the motorist’s interaction with the landowner’s property lasts mere seconds.” The court held, “The common law imposes a duty on landowners, in urban settings, to safeguard public highways from the threat of falling trees.” 

The Superior Court found that “by purchasing land which abutted a public highway in an urban setting, [the defendant] assumed the duty to protect members of the public who used that highway from her trees.” The court stated, “[t]his presents a factual question for the jury to decide the landowner’s reasonableness in allowing the tree to group based upon the nature of the locality, the seriousness of the danger, and the ease with which it may be prevented.” As such, the court ruled that the trial court correctly opined that “there was sufficient evidence to prove that the tree was in a dangerous condition being situated on a steep and dangerous hill with soil failing to hold trees, a hill from which trees regularly fall.” 

The Superior Court held that the jury rationally found that a reasonably prudent landowner would have known of the dangerous condition posed by the defendant’s tree, even without proof of a defect. As such, the court found that the defendant was not entitled to judgment as matter of law and that the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 

---

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}