Medeiros v. Honomu Sugar Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1912 |
| Citation | 21 Haw. 155 |
| Parties | JOHN CARLOS MEDEIROS v. HONOMU SUGAR COMPANY, AN HAWAIIAN CORPORATION. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREEXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
The owner of land on which he permits a tree to remain near the public highway is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care that it shall not fall into the highway and injure persons lawfully there. Though the defective condition of the tree was the result of natural causes, still, if such defect was known, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have been known, by the owner, it was the duty of the owner to exercise reasonable care and diligence to prevent the tree from falling and thereby injuring those who might have occasion to use the public highway.
E. A. Douthitt ( Douthitt & Coke on the brief) for plaintiff.
M. F. Prosser ( Kinney, Prosser, Anderson & Marx on the brief) for defendant.
The plaintiff filed his declaration in the circuit court of the first circuit seeking to recover from the defendant the sum of $25,415 as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as the result of the negligence of the defendant. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, assessing the damages at the sum of seven thousand dollars. The defendant excepted to the verdict “as being contrary to the law and the evidence and the weight of the evidence,” and thereafter moved for a new trial. The motion for a new trial was denied, to which ruling the defendant also excepted. It is upon these exceptions that the case comes before us for consideration.
The material facts alleged in the declaration, so far as they are essential to a correct understanding of the case, are substantially as follows: That the defendant owns and operates a sugar plantation at Honomu, on the Island of Hawaii, running along one side of which, is a public highway; that on the land so owned and used by the defendant, and within a short distance from said public highway, the defendant, on December 7, 1910, and for a long time prior thereto, “negligently and carelessly allowed and permitted to be, remain, and grow thereon, a certain tree of great height and dimensions, which was dangerous, unstable, insecure and unsafe to persons and vehicles traveling over and upon said public highway;” that on the date mentioned the plaintiff was driving four horses attached to a hearse upon said public highway and when he reached a point opposite the tree it suddenly fell and crashed down upon him, breaking both of his legs, the result of the injury being such, that his right leg was necessarily amputated and his left leg was “permanently shortened, deformed and crippled.”
There was no dispute in the court below, nor is there any here, as to the seriousness of the plaintiff's injuries, nor that the injuries were caused by the falling of the tree. The chief question before the jury, as disclosed by the record now before us, was, whether the plaintiff's injuries were the result of the negligence of the defendant. The jury by its verdict answered this question in the affirmative. The question thus presented for our determination is, whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
The contention of the plaintiff is, that the tree in question was obviously in a dangerous condition, which condition was known, or by the exercise of ordinary care, could have been known, by the defendant, and that the defendant was negligent in permitting it to remain near the public highway over which he, together with the general public, was obliged to travel. Upon this theory of the case the plaintiff adduced evidence tending to show that the tree was from forty to fifty feet in height and about two feet in diameter; that it was an old eucalyptus tree and was standing about twenty-two feet from the highway in question; that it was leaning a little towards the highway; that it was “kind of rotten” and some of the foliage was dry; that some of the roots were exposed; that there was a hollow under the trunk of the tree; that there was also a hollow in the tree itself; that it was growing in a clay soil; that trees are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial