256 TREES ON BOUNDARY OR IN HIGHWAY 



Statutes have been passed prohibiting the mutilation of trees- 

 under police powers. 1 



It has been held that shade trees are not a nuisance 

 per se but become such if they in fact interfere with the use 

 of the highway. 2 Trees have been held to constitute an 

 obstruction to a sidewalk. 3 



A city or other municipal corporation will be liable for any 

 injury to a person resulting from the falling of a tree, or its 

 branches, which stands within a street or highway, if it be 

 shown that the city authorities knew, or might have learned 

 through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that k the tree 

 constituted a menance to life or limb and made no effort to 

 remedy the condition or to warn those using the street, re- 

 garding the danger. 4 However, if the circumstances were 

 such that the municipal authorities could not have reason- 

 ably suspected that the tree was dangerous, the corpora- 

 tion will not be liable for any injury suffered. 5 



Trees or shrubs which do not interfere with the use of a 

 highway are not an obstruction, 6 nor is a log chute near the 

 highway. 7 Logs and stumps within the highway 8 or 

 lumber piled therein 9 may constitute an obstruction or a 

 nuisance. 



167. Injuries to Trees by Public Service Corpora- 

 tions. Telegraph, telephone, electric light, and other com- 



1. State v. Merrill, 37 Me. 329. 



2. Frostburgv. Wineland, 98 Md. 239, 56 Atl. 81 1. 103 Am. St. Rep. 399, 64 L.R. A. 627. 



3. Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 113 Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266, 35 L. R. A. 267; Chase v. 



Oshkosh, 81 Wis. 313, 51 N. W. 560, 29 Am. St. Rep. 898, 15 L. R. A. 553. 



4. Duffy v. Dubuque, 63 Iowa 171, 18 N. W. 900, 50 Am. Rep. 743; Chase v. Lowell. 



151 Mass. 422, 24 N. E. 212; McGarey v. New York, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 500, 

 85 N. Y. Suppl. 861; Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Pa. St. 355; Ct. McLoughlin 

 v. Philadelphia, 142 Pa. St. 80, 21 Atl. 754. (Injury by window screens). 



5. Gubasko v. New York, 14 Daly (N. Y.) 559, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 215; Jones v. Green- 



boro, 124 N. C. 310, 32 S. E. 675; But see. Vosper v. New York. 49 N. Y. Super. 

 Ct. 296. 



6. Crismon v. Deck 84 Iowa 344, 51 N. W. 55; Quinton v. Burton, 61 Iowa 471, 



16 N. W. 569; Bills v. Belknap, 36 Iowa 583; Clark v. Dasso, 34 Mich. 86; 

 People v. Carpenter, 1 Mich. 273; Wheatfleld v. Shasley, 23 Misc. (N. Y.) 

 100, 51 N. Y. Suppl. 835: See Eaves v. Terry, 4 McCord (S. C.) 125. 



7. Haines v. Barclay Tp., 181 Pa. St. 521, 37 Atl. 560. 



8. Langworthy v. Green Tp., 88 Mich. 207, 50 N. W. 130. 



9. McKune v. Santa Clara Valley Mill etc. Co., 110 Cal. 480, 42 Pac. 980; Smith 



v. Davis 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 298; Covington Sawmill etc. Co. v. Drexilius 

 120 Ky. 493, 87 S. W. 266, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 903, 117 Am. St. Rep. 593; Holly v. 

 Bennett, 46 Minn. 386, 49 N. W. 189; Winship v. Enfleld, 42 N. H. 197; Pitts- 

 burgh etc. Bridge Co. v. Com., 4 Pa. Cas. 153, 8 Atl. 217; Cf. Harper v. Kopp, 

 73 S. W. 1127, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2342; Friedman v. Snare, etc. Co., 71 N. J. L. 

 605, 61 Atl. 401, 108 Am. St. Rep. 764, 70 L. R. A. 147; State v. Webb's River 

 Imp. Co., 97 Me. 559, 55 Atl. 495; Beardslee v. French, 7 Conn. 125, 18 Am. 

 Dec. 86. 



