Whitesell v. Houlton
2 Haw. App. 365, 1981 Haw. App. LEXIS 236, 632 P.2d 1077 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a tree is liable for damages when the tree's overhanging branches or protruding roots cause, or there is an imminent danger of them causing, sensible harm to an adjoining property. The affected neighbor may require the tree owner to pay for damages and for the cost of abating the nuisance.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs-Appellees Whitesells and Defendant-Appellant Houlton owned adjoining residential properties.
- A large banyan tree on Houlton's property had branches that overhung the Whitesells' property and the public street.
- The branches of Houlton's tree had previously caused damage to the Whitesells' garage roof.
- In April 1975, the Whitesells asked Houlton to trim the encroaching branches, but he refused.
- In January 1976, branches from Houlton's tree damaged the Whitesells' Volkswagen van while it was on the street fronting the properties.
- In February 1976, the Whitesells informed Houlton by letter that a storm had left large, broken branches dangling dangerously over their driveway and carport.
- Houlton did not respond to the letter or take any action to remove the dangerous branches.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Whitesells sued Defendant Houlton in district court.
- The district court entered a judgment in favor of the Whitesells, awarding them damages for repairs to their garage roof and van, as well as costs for trimming the tree.
- Defendant Houlton, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii.
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 have a duty to prevent their tree's branches from causing sensible harm to an adjoining neighbor's property, making them liable for damages caused and for the reasonable costs of abatement?
Opinions:
Majority - Burns, J.
Yes. A landowner has a duty to prevent their tree from causing sensible harm to a neighbor's property and is liable for damages and abatement costs if that duty is breached. The court rejected the traditional Massachusetts rule, which provides only for self-help, as unrealistic and unfair. Instead, it adopted a modified Virginia rule, reasoning that the owner of a tree's trunk is the owner of the entire tree and bears responsibility for it. When overhanging branches or protruding roots actually cause, or pose an imminent danger of causing, sensible harm to a neighbor's property (beyond mere shedding of leaves or casting shade), they constitute a nuisance. The affected neighbor may then hold the tree's owner liable for the damages and the cost of trimming the branches or roots back to the property line if the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the governing rule in Hawaii for disputes involving encroaching trees, moving away from the traditional rule of self-help to a modern standard based on nuisance and negligence. It imposes a duty of reasonable care on landowners to manage their trees and prevent them from causing foreseeable harm to adjacent properties. This holding provides a more complete remedy for aggrieved neighbors, allowing them to recover damages and abatement costs, which will likely influence how property owners maintain their vegetation and how courts in other jurisdictions approach similar disputes.
