Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Why-R-People-So-Dumb t1_j1kywg0 wrote

Shiel v. Rowell, 480 Mass. 106 (2018) Upholds the "Massachusetts rule" that "an individual whose property is damaged by a neighbor's healthy tree has no cause of action against a landowner of the property upon which the tree lies." Property owners who are disturbed by their neighbor's trees are "not without recourse," though. They remain free to remove any part of the tree that crosses the property line.

Ponte v. DaSilva, 388 Mass. 1008 (1983). "The failure of a landowner to prevent the blowing or dropping of leaves, branches, and sap from a healthy tree onto a neighbor's property is not unreasonable and cannot be the basis of a finding of negligence or private nuisance."

Kurtigan v. City of Worcester, 348 Mass. 284 (1965) (Superseded by Statute as Stated in Hanna v. Town of Framingham, Mass. App. Ct., February 11, 2004) City was held liable for damages caused by limbs of dead tree falling from property which city acquired for nonpayment of taxes. "Public policy in a civilized community requires that there be someone to be held responsible for a private nuisance on each piece of real estate, and, particularly in an urban area, that there be no oases of nonliability where a private nuisance may be maintained with impunity."

1