Richmond v. General Engineering Enterprises Co., 83-2937
| Decision Date | 17 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2937,83-2937 |
| Citation | 454 So.2d 16 |
| Parties | Michael RICHMOND, Appellant, v. GENERAL ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Welbaum, Zook, Jones & Williams and John D. Weatherford, Miami, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.
Richmond sued for money damages based on the alleged "negligence" of the defendant-appellee in permitting branches of a ficus tree growing on its property to extend over and onto the next lot where the plaintiff's home was located. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.
While there is substantial authority to the contrary, which may indeed represent the majority rule, cases collected, 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 53, n. 37 (1972), we agree with those decisions which hold that in view of the undoubted right of the landowner himself to cut off intruding roots or branches at the property line, 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 52 (1972), 1 no such action may be maintained. Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144 (D.C.1950); Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931); Norwood v. City of New York, 95 Misc.2d 55, 406 N.Y.S.2d 256, 258 (Civ.Ct.1978); Mead v. Vincent, 199 Okl. 508, 187 P.2d 994 (1947); Granberry v. Jones, 188 Tenn. 51, 216 S.W.2d 721 (1949); see Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla.Supp. 131 (15th Cir.Ct.1968). It seems to us that the recognition of an action of this type to redress a claimed wrong which might otherwise be obviated by the time-honored remedy of self-help would represent a wasteful and needless use of the judicial system. See Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condominium Association, Inc., 425 So.2d 650 (Fla.3d DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
1 We do not consider whether the reasonable expenses so incurred are recoverable. See Olson v. Westerberg, 2 Ill.App.2d 285, 119 N.E.2d 413 (1954).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp.
... ... Western Union Telegraph Co., 90 Vt. 342, 344, 98 A. 758, 759 (1916). See ... processes and cycles of trees." See Richmond v ... General Engineering Enterprises Co., 454 ... ...
-
Lane v. W.J. Curry & Sons
...116 Wash. 228, 199 P. 298, 301 (1921). 4. See, e.g., Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144, 148 (D.C.Cir.1950); Richmond v. Gen. Eng'g Enter. Co., 454 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla.Ct.App. 1984); Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Mem'l Park, 687 S.W.2d 551, 552 (Ky.Ct.App.1985); Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 23......
-
Jones v. Wagner
...landowner's only remedy. This is referred to as the "Massachusetts Rule." Michaelson v. Nutting, supra; Richmond v. General Engineering Enterprises, 454 So.2d 16 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App., 1984). Others require proof of some "sensible or substantial" damage before an action for damages in trespass ......
-
Shiel v. Rowell
...to parties and the unnecessary burdening of courts. Other courts have recognized as much. See, e.g., Richmond v. General Eng'g Enters. Co., 454 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla. Dist. App. Ct. 1984) ("It seems to us that the recognition of an action of this type to redress a claimed wrong which might othe......