Laserfiche WebLink
In the Shade of a Tree Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002 <br />Trespass to trees is a tort recognized separate from trespass to land and carries a <br />heavy penalty. Cutting a tree on someone else's land without her permission is a <br />trespass to the tree.19 The penalty for intentional, wrongful tree removal is treble <br />damages. In Minnesota, a landowner whose trees were bulldozed and buried on his <br />land without his permission was awarded both treble damages for the trespass to his <br />trees and punitive damages for the trespass to his land.20 <br />An example of involuntary or casual trespass to the tree is illustrated in a Minnesota <br />court case where a driver had a heart attack and drove into a grove of Colorado Spruce <br />trees.21 Although the tree damage or "trespass" was not malicious, it occurred without <br />the permission of the t rees' owner and the court awarded him single damages. There <br />are also penalties for criminal trespass and criminal damage to property.22 <br /> <br />Utility Company Pruning. A common urban sight is the row of trees under a power line <br />cut in a deep v-shape. You may have a client who wants to sue a utility company for its <br />tree-trimming techniques or its removal of a tree. Your case assessment should weigh <br />aesthetics against the utility company's duty to meet public demand to prevent power <br />failures caused by fallen tree limbs during storms. <br /> <br />Utility companies have easements across property in order to provide electricity. Courts <br />recognize the right of utility companies to trim or remove trees within their easement, as <br />long as the work is reasonable and necessary to construct, use, operate, or maintain <br />power lines in the easement area.23 However, the utility company has a duty to remove <br />power line obstructions in a way that causes the least damage to the property the power <br />lines cross. <br /> <br />In a recent Minnesota case,24 the Supreme Court confirmed that a property owner has <br />an interest in the trees on city land in front of her property and standing to sue the utility <br />company that removed a boulevard tree. However, the Court also found that this right is <br />subordinate to a utility's right to trim or remove the trees to keep power lines clear. The <br />Court of Appeals decision that preceded the Supreme Court case should be mandatory