divgradcurl said:
Exactly. What an arborist might know is irrelevant in this case. What a HOA might know is irrelevant to the OP. What happened in rmet4nzkx's neighborhood is irrelevant in this case. The standard is that the homeowner "knew or should have known" that the tree posed a safety hazard, not "should have checked to see" or "should have had an arborist come out and check."
Because that's not the test for determining liability in this case. Think about it -- if a property owner were to be held strictly liable for any damages that a tree might cause, do you think any homeowner's insurance company would insure a property with trees on it? It doesn't matter if the OP knows whether the tree is healthy or not -- only that the OP had no reason to believe that the tree posed a hazard.
If you read OP's post they cut down two trees that were in his opinion, diseased or dangerous but failed to have an expert inspect the remaining trees after, so he would or should have known that there was the possibility that the remaining trees were also damaged or diseased, even the removal of the damaged trees may have affected the health of the tree that is subsequently dropping it's branches. So he may be liable for the damage even if the tree were healthy if he didn't take reasonable care with this tree as he had with the others in his yard. We don't have all the facts so it is possible that OP may have some liability in the event that the tree is diseased or damaged.
Please see the following for the applicible CA rule and reference to case law.
http://www.igin.com/Landscaping/1102outonalimb.html
By Dr.Walter Barrows
It’s a beautiful day, and you decide to take advantage of the sunshine and fresh air by taking a walk, maybe just in your neighborhood, or in a nearby park. As you’re strolling along, enjoying the greenery, you hear a sharp, cracking sound, and look up to see a branch falling from a tree down the road, smashing the windshield of the car parked beneath it.
During the hot summer weather, the phenomenon known to ar-borists as “summer limb drop” takes place in numerous species of trees, including the common oak and eucalyptus trees. This type of limb drop generally occurs in the warmer climates where the newly formed branches grow very fast. In some cases, improperly topped tree branches are a major starting point for this type of limb drop. In other cases, cracks or decay may be a factor.
The jagged end of the limb
For example, in northern California a large limb that fell onto the highway involved limb drop. It was dark at the time and had been raining. Tragically, the jagged end of the limb broke through the windshield of a passing car, killing the driver and seriously injuring the passenger.
The court determined that the tree was part of a row of eucalyptus trees planted along the highway, and that the defendants knew that limbs had been falling from these trees for years. They also knew that the particular limb with which the plaintiffs’ car collided on that dark night had previously extended over the highway for some 30 feet.
A tree surgeon familiar with the area testified that the limbs of the tree involved were healthy and that he saw no evidence of rot, decay or disease. He did state, however, that in Napa County, California, eucalyptus trees grow very fast and become “rangy” — or, as Webster’s New World Dictionary so aptly defines that word — “long-limbed and slender.” The tree surgeon added that these eucalyptus limbs have a tendency to break during the hot days of summer because of the excessive flow of sap and, in the early fall, with the first rains and winds; and that the trees will drop their limbs — even good, healthy ones.
He further testified that the standard method of preventing eucalyptus trees from becoming hazardous is to top them and shorten their limbs so as to reduce the amount of leverage at the points where the limbs are apt to break; and that he performed this service for 10 or 15 clients a year.
The defendant testified she had been told that eucalyptus trees drop their limbs. She added that, as far as she could see, her trees were healthy. However, she admitted that she’d had no work done on them by a tree surgeon for five years, although she well knew that eucalyptus limbs do fall at times.
The court found that the row of eucalyptus trees planted alongside the highway constituted a “non-natural or artificial condition” and stated the following rule:
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to others outside the land (which included the adjacent highway) by a structure or other artificial condition thereon, which the possessor realizes or should realize as involving an unreasonable risk of such harm if …(a) the possessor has created the condition or …(b) the possessor when he takes possession knows or should know the condition which was created before he took possession.”
As the court pointed out, the distinguishing factor in this case is the natural propensity of healthy, untrimmed eucalyptus limbs to fall to the ground, and the defendant’s knowledge of such propensity. The rule in California is that a landowner is liable for conditions occurring where he fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to users of the highway from trees on his property.
Of course racer is right, the OP would have had to have knowledge that the tree was unhealthy and likely to cause damage or injury. Or the neighbor will have to prove that he should have had such knowledge.