In the case of Harris v. Felouzis, No. 85 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 10, 2025 Kunselman, J., Lazarus, J., and Bender, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.) (Bender, J., dissenting), the court affirmed the entry of a judgment in favor of a Plaintiff in a case involving a Plaintiff motorist who was injured when a 110 year old oak tree fell from a Defendant’s property onto an adjacent road.
In this case, the court reaffirmed Pennsylvania law that holds that a landowner that allows trees to grow on the property unchecked can be held liable in negligence to motorists injured when a tree falls onto an adjacent road. The court noted that no visible defect in the tree or expert testimony is required. Rather, the standard is reasonable care under the circumstances.
The court noted that, if the condition of the tree could have been known by the exercise of ordinary care, then the Defendant landowner must exercise reasonable care to prevent the tree from falling and injuring anyone who may be using the adjacent road. The law puts the burden on the landowners given that the landowners have access to their own property and the passing motorists do not.
The court noted that the public right of passage on roadways carries with it once the highways have been established, and obligation on occupiers of abutting land to use reasonable care to ensure that the passage way is safe.
Landowners are not allowed to simply let nature take its course.
This decision is also notable for the Superior Court’s noting that a Motion for Summary Judgment that was denied based upon the sufficiency of the evidence is superseded by the trial record and cannot be separately appealed once a verdict has been entered.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.