Taylor v. Olsen
578 P.2d 779 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land adjacent to a public road has a duty of reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm from falling trees. However, this duty does not require intrusive inspection for non-visible, internal defects unless there are external indications of the tree's unsound condition or such inspection is a common and ordinary practice.
Facts:
- Marion Olsen purchased land adjoining a two-lane blacktop highway in Clackamas County for logging purposes.
- Over a period of five to six weeks, Olsen logged about half the timber on his land, including trees adjacent to a particular 85-foot tree located on the county's right-of-way.
- This tree, which leaned slightly toward the road, had a double trunk.
- On a dark and windy January evening, the tree splintered and fell across the highway.
- Plaintiff was driving on the highway and her car struck the fallen tree, causing her to sustain injuries.
- A subsequent examination of the fallen tree revealed that its center was decayed, but the decay was not visible from the exterior bark or the surface beneath it.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Marion Olsen and Clackamas County in a state trial court for damages from personal injuries.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of both defendants.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment entered on the directed verdict for defendant Olsen, the appellee, to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner who conducts logging operations adjacent to a public road have a duty to inspect a remaining roadside tree for non-visible, internal decay, in the absence of external signs that the tree is unsound?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
No. A landowner's duty of reasonable care does not extend to inspecting a roadside tree for non-visible internal decay unless there are external indications of a defect or such an intrusive inspection is a common practice. The court rejects a simple 'urban' versus 'rural' classification for determining a landowner's duty, instead favoring a fact-specific inquiry based on a general standard of 'reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm.' Factors relevant to this inquiry include traffic density and the nature of the landowner's activities. While Olsen's logging operations were sufficient to create a jury question as to whether he had a duty to exercise reasonable care regarding the tree, the plaintiff failed to show this duty was breached. To establish a breach, the plaintiff needed to present evidence that either the tree showed external signs of decay putting Olsen on notice, or that chopping or drilling into a tree is a common and reasonable method of inspection. Without such evidence, the duty of reasonable care does not compel a landowner to perform intrusive inspections for latent defects.
Analysis:
This decision refines tort law in Oregon by rejecting rigid classifications like 'urban' versus 'rural' for determining a landowner's duty of care regarding roadside trees. Instead, it establishes a flexible, fact-sensitive 'reasonable care' standard that considers the totality of the circumstances, including the landowner's activities on the land. By doing so, the court balances the safety of the public with the practical burdens on landowners. The ruling sets a significant evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs in such cases, requiring them to demonstrate not just a latent defect but also some external sign that should have alerted the landowner to the need for a more thorough or intrusive inspection.
