### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ja nuary 1, 200 4 S es sio n
RAYMOND E. ROLLI NS, JR., ET AL 

### . v. TH E ELE CTRIC POW ER BOARD

OF THE METROPO LI TAN GOV’T

. OF NASHVI LLE AND DAV IDSO N COUNTY, ET AL 

### . Ap pe a l f ro m th e Cir c uit

Cou rt fo r S umn e r C ou nty No

. 2 1 2 2 1 -C C

. L

. R o ger s , J u d ge

_______________________ No. M2003-00865-COA- R3-CV - F iled Jun e 8, 2004

_______________________ This appea l conce rns a complaint of neg lige nce f iled by the appe llants Ray mond and Sharon Rollins ag ainst the Electric P o wer Boa rd of Me tropolitan Nashville and Da vidson County(NES). The
a lle g e d n e g lig e nc e inv olv e d th e c utt ing a ndre mov a l by NE S of thr e e tr e e s o n th e app e lla nts ’ property . The Rollins appeal the tria l court’s fina l order in f avor of NES. We affirm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed and Rem anded

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which P A T R IC IA J . C O T T RE LL , and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.

J . Todd Moore, T. H olland McKinnie, Perry Moore Mc Kinnie, Fr ank l i n , Tenne ssee, f or the
app e lla nts , Ray mon d E . Ro lli ns , Jr. a ndSha ro n L . Ro lli ns

. C. Dewe y Br anstetter, Jr

. , Eug ene W. Ward, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, the Metropolitan Government of Na shville and Davidson County , Tenne ssee a cting by and throug h the Elec tric Power Boa rd.

OP IN ION

The fac ts of this c ase are basica lly undisputed. The Electric Power B oard of Metropolitan Nashville and Dav i d s o n C o unty (NES) a cquire d an ea sement over the prope rty

of Ray mond and S h ar o n R o l l i n s , l o ca t ed at 1 7 7 C u m b er l an d Dr i v e i n S u m n erC o u n t y f o r t h e p u rp o s e o f r u n n i n g a 4000 volt power supply

over sa id property

to a transf

ormer loc ated on the Rollins’ p ro p erty from which the Rollins’ home was supplied. Dire ctly underne ath these pow er lines thre e tre es g rew , two maple tre es and one walnut tree . These tree s, which we re pla nted af ter the lines we re r

un, had bee n tr imm e d b y

NE S on a t le a st tw o pr e vio us oc c a sio ns . T he tr e e s h a d g ro wn to s uc h a n e xten t th a t th e ir limbs were “ burning in the wires” on NES’s power poles. I t is li kewise undis p u t ed t h at the tree-2-

limbs had become so involved with the power lines as to r equire the trimming of at least half of eac h tree

. I t is also undisputed that this trimming would more than likely destroy the tree s in question. I n th e c ou rs e of

NE S’ s r ou tin e ma int e na nc e of po we r l ine s in th is a

re a , c on tr a c tor s w e re dir e c te d to
remove these three trees. I n the course of remova l and pursuant to NES’s policy established for the purpose, r epre sentatives of N ES attempted to inform the owne rs of these tree s o f the impending
remova l and obtain permission for that removal. In its attem p t s t o co m p l y with this pol icy , and despite open pr operty

line in dicators to the c ontrary , NES contrac tors contac ted the landowne r adjac ent to the Rolli ns, Mrs. Dudley Miller. When a sked about the tree s in que stion , M rs

. M iller replied that her husband ha d planted them and g ave her permission for cutting and remova l of the tree s. The Rolli ns wer e never informed of

the pending remova l. I n fac t they wer e not awa

re of that
remova l until t hey

returne d from a va cation and notice d the re maining stumps. Ray mond and Sharon Rolli ns filed suit in Ci rcuit Court for Sumner County , alleg ing that the tree s “we re w rong fully cut and re moved from the Rollins’ property by NES

. . .” The plaintiffs alternatively soug ht rec overy for r eplac ement value of the re moved tree s, d i m i n u t i o n o f the prope rty value of their lot at 177 Cumberland Drive in Hende rsonville, T en n essee, and re covery of three times the timber value pu rs ua nt t o T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 43 -2 8- 31 2. NE S a ns we re d, de nying the app lic abil ity of se c tio n 312 , an d f

ile d a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th e ba sis of

so ve re ig n im mun ity , o r i n the alternative based on NES’s rig ht to remove tree s located w ithin it s ease ment for the distribution lines serving the plaintiffs’ pr operty . NES’s co-de fe n d an t T re es , I nc. likewise f iled a motion for summary judgme nt. Plainti ffs re sponded and on June 7, 2002 the motions were he ard.
By order enter ed June 18, 2002, the court dismissed the claims as to Tre es, I nc. and ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s p e rt ine nt t o th e c la ims a g a ins t N ES:

2

. The De fenda

nt, NES pro v i d ed p o we r l i n es t o P l ai n t i ff ’s proper ty since 1951. The De fenda nt had a pr escriptive ease ment for its power lines on Plainti ff’ s property . Tree s were allowed or place d by homeowner s within the easeme nt. Over 30-40 y e ars the tr e e s g re w t o a he ig ht w he re the limbs c on ta c te d th e po we r l ine s, cre ated powe r outag es, and burning of the tree s. Severa l attempts over the y ear s of trimming occ urre d. NES finally determined that the t ree s wer e a hazard a nd remove d them without first contacting Plaintiff, the proper homeowner

. The Court finds t hat NE S ha s th e ri g ht t o r e a so na bly us e a ndma int a in i ts u til ity e a se me nt and

po we r l ine s. NES is a g overnme ntal entity , per T.C.A. 29-20-101 et seq. T.C.A. 43-28-312 is not applicable to a g overnme ntal entity

. The only issue is whether the NES action wa s a re asonable use and maintenance of its e aseme nt, a question of fa ct that is disputed. Th e GT L A, pe r T .C. A. 29 -2 0- 20 5 d oe s n ot b ar a c la im f or e mpl oy e e ne g lig e nc e in deciding it wa s rea sonable and nece ssary to r emove the tree s. The M o t i o n for Summary J udg ment by

NES is therefor e g rante d in part as to T.C.A. 43-28- 312 and d e n i e d i n p ar ta s t o s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y.
3. By

the court’s action this matter sh al l p ro cee d pursuant to GTLA, non-jury , on J uly

7 and 21, 2002.-3-

W i t h t h e i s s u es t h u s d ef i n ed , t h e t ri al co u rt , Ho n o ra b l e C

. L

. (B u ck ) R o ger s p re s i d i n g, conducte d a full hearing of the cause on Dec ember 5, 2002. The plaintiffs’ arg ument at trial ce ntere d around an alleg ed injury to the ir property rig hts prox imately cause d by

NES’s failure to inform them of the de c isi on to c ut the tr e e s r a the r tha n to tr im the m. T his arg ume nt r e sts on tw o p os tul a te s:

I

. NES had adopte d a policy , para g raph 14.4.2 of which re quires NES to m ake re a so na

ble e ff orts t o o btain l a nd ow ne r p e rm iss ion prior to t re e re mov a l.

I I

. NE S f

a ile d to fo llo w this pr oc e du re , pro xima te ly c a us ing the Rol lin s’ inabilityto find suitable alternatives to tree r emoval.

I n support of this arg ument Mr. R o llins gave the following testimonyupon direc t examination:
Q. Had NE S contacted y ou prior to removing these tree s and aske d for y ou r p e rm iss ion to r e mov e the se tr e e s a nd c ut the m dow n, wh a t w ou ld y ou r r e sp on se have be en? A. Do n’ t c ut the m do wn ; le t’ s try to tr im the m. I f y ou thi nk y ou [ca n’ t] do a cor rec t job of tri m m i n g, l et’s take those two conduc tors down, move that transformer out to t he stree t pole and the r evenue meter out ther e, run the service underg round into my

house - - becau s e t h e service into myhouse is alre ady underg round from their reve nue meter. I would have paid - - g ladly paid to run out
un de rg ro un d s e rv ic e int o my ho us e fr om that ut ility

po le ou t to the str e e t, b e c a us e these subjec t lines onlyservice my house. That’ s the alternative I ’d have soug ht.

The NES tre e trimming a nd line clea ranc e policy

was introduce d as exhibit 2 in the re cord. Parag raph 14.4 of

that policy

constitutes the duty

arg ued by the plaintiffs in the trial court and her e:

14 .4 RO UT I NEMA I NT EN AN CE

14.41 NES or its Contractor shall make a rea sonable eff ort to notify
owner of the proposed trimming; if owner cannot be contac ted, tree s will be trim med according to the National Electric Code, NES Tree Trimm ing Cle aranc e Re qu ir e me nts , a ndloc a l or din a nc e s.

14 .4 .2 NE S wi ll make a re a so na ble e ff ort to ob ta in p e rm iss ion to
remove instead of trim all tree s directly under the line.
a) I f permission is g rante d, all brush and debris will be re moved
a ndwo odc ut i nto le ng ths de sir e d b y the c us tom e r, if

no t N ES w ill
remove all wood.-4- b) I f customer

ref uses to nece ssary

trimming, the Tr ee T rimming Contractors r epre sentative or NES repre sentative shall explain FI VE DAY TRI M POL I CY to the customer. I n this policy cust o m er h as fi ve da y s to hir e the ir ow n co ntr a c tor (at c us tom e r’ s o wne xpe ns e ) t o trim trees to NES specific ations. I f af ter five day s customer ha s not ha d th e tr e e s trimm e d; the n N ES T re e Trim mi ng Con tr a c tor wi ll return to trim the tre es with a police office r p re s en t to handle any dis a g re e able c us tom e rs

. 14.4.3 I t is prefe rr ed t h at no t ree s be direc tly under primary

lines or on
e a se me nts . Cl e a

ranc e wi ll be obta ine d b y tr imm ing or

re mov ing tr e e s in
acc ordance w i t h NE S T re e T ri m m i n g C l ea ra n ce R eq u i re m en t s

. Ob s tru ct i ons such as limbs, trees, e tc. shall be re moved with a ten-fo o t (1 0 ft) ra dius around N ES poles and equipment such a s transformers, fuse d side lines, side lines, etc.

F or its pa rt , M e tr o p re se nte d n o e xpe rt te sti mon y

d u ri n gth eh e a

ri n g c on c e rn ing the fe a sib ili ty of the other options re fer ence d in Mr

. Rolli ns’ direc t e x amination. As a result the trial c ourt order ed supplemental proof

to be submitted via aff idavit or deposition conce rni n g the fe asibilityand appropriateness of

other re medial measur es. Metro pr esented t he af fidavit of Holly

L ively , an e ng ine e ri ng su pe rv iso r i n th e Cus tom e r E ng ine e ri ng De pa rt me nt f or NES

. Ms. Live ly

g a ve oa th that, while it is possible to place a 4000 volt primary service line underg round, “this is not something that NES normally

or routinely

does, a n d i t wo u l d n ot have be en off ere d as an option to an NES
c us tom e r a s a ny

pa rt of dis c us sio ns c on c e rn ing tr e e tr imm ing .” No ne the le ss, in o rd e r t o a c c omp lis h the under g round plac ement of the 4000 volt prima r y s e rv ic eli n e , e xc avation, bac kfill and installation of t he li ne was estimated at a tot al cost of $19,395.00. I n addition, the underg round primary service line would be plac ed appr ox imately wher e the c urre nt line is suspended, there by requir ing the
remova l of the tree s to pr ovide a fiftee n foot acc ess road to a n above g round transf ormer ne cessitated by the under g round plac ement. The plaintiffs r e s ponded with the af fidavits of Ray mond Roll ins, and Richie Bolin, a lice nsed e lectric al contra ctor. Mr. B olin estimated the cost of unde rg round installation of a service line at $7,350.00, excluding r ock excavation. That estimate assumed that NES would relocate the existi ng pole-mounted tra nsformer and meter t o another

exis ting se rvice pole locate d on the stree t fronting the Rollins’ property . Rely ing on Mr . Bolin ’s es timate, Mr. Rol lin s a sse rt e d in his a ff ida vit that th e fo llowi ng th ree op tio ns wo uldha ve be e n d isc us se d w ith N E S , h a d h e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y:

6. None of

the t hree (3) options prese nted below include replacing the exis ting, overhea d primary s er v i ce o n o u r p ro p er t y

wi t h u n d er gro u n d p ri m ar y s er v ice. That sche me would be unne cessa rily expensive, does not e x ist in our neighbor hood, would serve no useful purpose and is n o t re q u i re d by NES policy . The NES Ne w I ndivid u al R es idence Handbook pr ovides that for ty pical re sidential installation of up to 400 amps, no undergro u n d p rimary service is require d. See NES New-5-

I ndividual Residence Handbook, Ex hibit 1 to A ffidavit of Holly L ively , Fig ure 16, p. 19 . T he se c on da

ry se rv ic e lin e ins ide my

ho us e is 4 00 a mps

.
7. The fir st option t hat we wo u l d have disc ussed with N.E.S., had we had the opportuni t y i s t o replace the overhe ad, bar e 4,000 volt primary conductor s on our prope rty

with insulat e d , 1 2 /240 volt, sec ondary , underg round conduc tors from the stree t into our house. This alternative would include moving the exist ing transformer, located 59 fe et northwe st of our house on N.E .S. pole number 625026, to the exis ting N.E.S. pole number 6825025 at Cumberland Drive . The service on our prope rty

would then be c han ged from over head primary

to underg round seconda ry . No new tr ansformer would be neede d for this option. Underg round seconda ry service exis ts in our neig hborhood. P lease see photog raphs labe led ph oto g ra ph pa g e 1 th ro ug h 6 a ndSke tc h “ A” a ttach e d h e re to. Th e c os t e sti ma te
rec eived f

or this option is $7,350. Please see the Aff idav i t o f R i ch ie B olin filed here with. I n my

opinion, using this option would have adde d signific antly to the rea l property value of our home.

8. Th e se c on d op tio n wo uld be to re pla c e the ov e rh e a d, ba re , 4 ,0 00 vo lt prima ry c on du c tor s o n our p ro pe rt y wi th o ve rh e a d, ins ulate d, 12 0/2 40 vo lt,
se c on da ry c on du c tor s. Th is w ou ld r e qu ir e the sa me tr a ns fo rm e r mov e de sc ri be d in the op tio n ( 1) abo ve i.e ., mov e tr a ns fo rm e r f ro m N .E .S. po le nu mb e r 6 82 50 26 to N.E.S. pole number 6825025 at Cumberland Drive. This option does not require a
ne w p ole or

a ne w t rans fo rm e r andis the le a st c os tly op tio n. Th is O pti on wo uld eliminate the need f

or tree remova l since the ove rhea d conductor s are chang ed fr om ba re 4, 00 0 vo lt to ins ulate d 11 0/2 20 vo lt. Th is i s th e se rv ic e me tho d u se d to su pp ly
m o s th o u s es i n o u r n ei gh b o rh o o d

. P l ea s e s ee p h o t o gra p h s l ab el ed p age s 1 1 t h ro u gh 13 a ndSke tc h “ B ” on the a tta c he d e xhibi ts.

9. Th e thi rdop tio n w ou ld b e the sa me a s se c ond op ti on a s se t f orth i n para g raph 8 above but to include installation of plastic, spiral wound cove ring s over the insulated, seconda

ry conductor s to a void the nece ssity of tree trimm i n g o r t ree remova l. This has also bee n done by N.E.S. and exists today

in our neig hborhood. Ple a se se e ph oto g ra

ph la be le d p a g e s 7 thr ou g h 1 0 o n th e a tta c he d e xhibi ts. The pa rties submitted writt en ar g ument pursuant to the court’s order from the be nch. On Fe bruary 6, 2003, the court ent ere d its Memorandum Opinion. The fina l order of the court was enter ed on Marc h 10, 2003. Of particula r note is the following lang uag e fr om the trial court’ s order :

L ong befor e the Rollins acquire d the prope rty , NES had ac qu ired a presc riptive ea sement for the purpose of

using a nd maintaining its distribution li ne. On ce NE S h ad acquir ed the e aseme nt, it had the rig ht to use and maintain that
ease ment without providing notice t o t h e property owner , and without seeking the pr op e rt y ow ne r’ s p e rm iss ion or c on se nt to r e mov e tr e e s lo c a te d w ith in the e a se me nt.-6-

NES is not required to discuss other options with property owner s befor e re moving tree s located w ithin it s ease ment. The fa ct that NES may have a policy to contact pr op e rt y ow ne rs bef

or e re mov ing tr e e s d oe s n ot c re a te a le g a l du ty

to c on ta c t a pr op e rt y ow ne r p ri or

to tree rem ov al. While NE S ma y ha ve be e n c are le ss i n identify ing the p ro p er t y

owner , this care less mistake would not be a br eac h of any le g a l du ty by NE S. N ES a c te d w ith in i ts l e g a l r ig hts w hen it re mov e d th e tr e e s in question, and the Plaintiffs’ c omplaint should be dismi ssed.

Th e Rol lin s a

pp e a l th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r, c ha lle ng ing thi s con c lus ion that NES ha d n o d uty to notify the Rollins prior to removing the tree s instead of trimming the m.
There is no dispute that NES has an ea sement. There is no dispute that the limbs of the tree s int e rf e re d w ith the po we r l ine s. Th e re is n o d isp ute tha t mor e than f

if ty pe rc e nt o f the tr e e s w ou ld have to be trimmed in order to sec ure N ES’s ease ment. Under the circ umstances of

this case, the only choice s which the Rollins claim they would have pr esente d to NES involve its adjust ment of its own easeme nt rig hts in order to pre serve three tree s l o cate d direc tly within the prescriptive
ease ment and interf

ering there with.
This Court is, t here fore , prese nted with a contr oversy involving the a

ppropriate use of a n ease ment. Our rationale beg ins with the tenet that an e aseme nt is an interest in property confe rring upon its holder an enf

orce able ri gh t to use another’ s property

. See, e .g., Bradley v . Mcle od , 984 S.W. 2d92 9, 93 4 ( Te nn .Ct .A pp . 1 99 8) ; Brew v. Van Deman , 5 3 T e nn . 4 33 , 4 36 (1 87 1) ; Clayton v. W ise , 1 Tenn.Civ.App. 620, 638-39 (1910)

. The c ase at bar involves an e aseme nt by presc ription. “An e aseme nt by

pres cr i ption arises whe n a per son acting under a n adver se cla im of rig ht, makes uninterrupted, ope n and visible use of anothe r’s prope rty for at least twenty

y ear s with the owner’ s knowledg e and a cquiesc ence

. Lon g v . M ay be rry , 9 6 T e nn . at 38 2, 36 S.W. a t 10 41 ; Pev ear v. H unt , 924 S.W .2d at 116.” Bradley , 984 S.W .2d at 935.

The holder

of an e aseme nt has the rig ht to use or alter the aff ecte d premises only as re asonably

nece ssary

for the use of t he easement. Such holder ha s no rig ht to e x clude others from the use of or alteration of the premises so long as there is no interfe renc e with the ease ment privileg e. F or this rea son, the holder of an ea sement could not be rea sonably require d to pe rform any maintenanc e, repa irs or alter ations upon the prope rty over which the ease ment exis ts, unless such holder ha s made such maintenanc e, re pairs or a lterations nec essary by the manner

of H i s u s e o f t he
e a se me nt.

Y ate s v . M e tro po lit an Go v e rn me nt of Nash v ill e an d D av ids on Cou nty , 60 Tenn.App. 719, 726, 451 S.W .2d 437, 441.

As a re su lt, the su rf

a c e ri g hts of a se rv ie nt te ne me nt re ma in in co ns ta nt te ns ion wi th the ri g hts of th e e a s e me n t h o ld e r to u s e a n d main tain th e e a s e me n t o f w a y

. T h e f a c t th a t th e h older of the
ease ment is a provider

of ele ctric pow er he ighte ns the tension, for it has been said: “Ele ctricity if not-7-

proper ly safe g uarde d, is one of the most dang erous a nd lethal ag encie s known to man.” Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Sims , 21 Tenn. App. 233, 108 S.W.2d 801.

“ * * * One who deals with an article which is imminentlydang erous owe s a pu bli c du ty

to a ll t o w ho m it

ma y c omea ndwh o may

be e nd a ng e red t here byto
ex er ci s e ca

ution adequate to the peril involved, as f or example, in g iving notice of its dang erous c hara cter , and ther e nee d be no privity betwee n h i m an d the per son injured * * * .” 45 C.J. 846, S ec. 264.

In te rn ati on al H

ar v e ste r Co . v . Sar tai n , 32 Tenn. App. 425, 454- 55, 222 S.W .2d 854, 867 (1949).
As a g ener al proposition,
“[t] he person having the rig ht to use an ea sement has the right to re move obstructions unlawfully place d there on, as well as natural obstructions interfe ring with the use of the ea sement, so long as there is no breac h o f t he pea ce. T he theory is that the unlawful obstruc tion constitut es a private nuisanc e which the owner of the e aseme nt is entitled to a

bate under the rules applica ble to nuisance s g ener ally ; in doing so, he does not bec ome a tre spasser.”

25 Am.J ur.2d Ease ment and License s, § 101 (foo t n o t es om itted). Continuing in this vein, we ar e pe rs ua de d b y

the fo llo wi ng dis c us sio n o f the ow ne r’ s r ig hts :
The owne r of the f

ee may use the property throug h which the ea sement runs in any manner he desires, but he may not interfer e with the plaintiff’ s enjoy ment of its ex isting rig hts in the pipe line. Pa nh an dl e Ea ste rn Pi pe Lin e Co. v . S tat e Highway Commission , 2 94 U. S. 6 13 , 5 5 S. Ct. 56 3, 79 L .E d. 10 90 . A n e a se me nt i s an intere st in real prope rty . I t is ex presse d not in terms of possession or occ upancy but in terms of use. The ref ore, the property

of the owne r of an ea s ement is taken from him not nece ssarily

when the adver se party occupie s the land, but only when he preve nts or interfe res with the owner’s use of t he easement. W hen that occ urs there has bee n a taking of prope rty from the owne r of the e aseme nt just as much as if an adver se party

had take n rea l estate whic h another owned in fe e.
Buckeye Pipe Line Company v. Ke ating , 3 29 F .2 d 7 95 , 7 98 (C .A . 7 th 1 95 6) ; Acc ord Tenneco, I nc. v. May , 377 F.Supp. 941 (E.D. Ky . 1974), af firmed 512 F .2d 1380 (C.A. 6th 1975). I n balanc ing the rig hts of the servie nt tenement to the use of his land aga i n s t the rig hts of the dominant tenement ho ldi ng e a se me nt rig hts in this c a se , ove rridi ng c on sid e ratio n must be g ive n to the natur e of the us e for whic h the ea sement exists . The ve ry nature of ele ctricity

dwar fs other c onsiderations. I t is the supplier of electricity who i s char g ed with the heig htened duties for public safe ty , not the servient estate. T h e e a s e me n t p r e d a te d th e p lan ti n g o f th e tr e e s a n d th e tr e e s w e r e p lan te d w ith in the bo un da ri e s o f the e a se me nt i tse lf . A s ti me pa sse d th e tr e e s g re w to th e po int that th e y c ou ld c ome into contact with a 4000 volt uninsulated elec tric t ransmission line. The duty of the powe r compa ny-8-

is clear that it cannot allow the tre es to bec ome a ha zard. This duty as it relate s to c hildren is but one example as has bee n aptly stated: “In view of the deadl y an d i n s i dious chara cter of hig h-tension wi re s a ndin v ie w o f the c urios ity of c hil dr e n, the ir

ig no rance , h e e dle ssn e ss o f d a ng e r, a ndthe ir known love of a dventure , the courts have imposed a hig h deg ree of care upon persons maintaining elec tric wires to g uard them so that they will not cause injury

to children.” Town of Clin ton v . D av is , 177 S.W .2d 848, 851 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1943). Town of Clint on involved the well re co gn i zed pr op e ns ity

of c hil dr e n to c limb tr e e s.
Other case s involve the simple protection of the lines and g uarding ag ainst a deve lopment of su c h ha zar ds

. Clo se ly a na la g ou s to the c a se a t ba r i s Miller-Lagro v. N

orthern States Power Co. , 582 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1998) where Northern States Power Company had cut down seve ral tre es located on the city rig ht-of-w ay betwee n the paved roadw ay and the lot of Mi ller-L ag ro. Said the
c ou rt : We beg in our ana ly sis b y acknow ledg ing the delicate and sometimes conflicting balanc e betwe en a public utilit y ’s responsibility to provide saf e, ef ficient and re liable power

and a la ndowner ’s re asona b l e i n tere st in protecting tree s and shru b b e r y o n th e lan d o w n e r ’ s p r o p e r ty o r o n a n ab u tt in g r ig h t- o f

- w a y

. T h is is y et another pag e in the volumes of thoug htful dissertation on the tensions betwee n the rig hts of a private landowne r and the need f or public ser vices in our loca l
c ommun iti e s.

. . . . Most jurisdictions hold how ever , that “[t] he interest of the abutting ow ners in t re e s is su bje c t on ly

to the su pe ri or

c la ims of the pu bli c .” Mu nic ipa lit ie s g e ne ra lly reta in rights to trim or

cut down tre es in the “inter est of public saf ety , convenie nce, or hea lth” for suc h purposes a s road improvement, convenie nce of trave lers, and
a ssi sti ng the wo rk

of pu bli c uti lit ie s. Whil e the L a g ro s h a ve a c omm on la w i nte re st in t he tr e e s t h a t s t o o d o n c i t y l a n d i n f r o n t o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y , t h a t i n t e r e st i s subordinate to the right of the municipality

–here exercised by

NSP in i ts util ity

line
ma int e na nc e fu nc tio n– to tr im or c ut the L a g ro s’ tr e e s in the pe rf orma nc e of

its pu bli c wo rk s. 582 N.W.2d 550, 552-53 (Minn. 1998).

Th is a rg ume nt s uf

fe rs fr om a

tw o- fo ld w e akn e ss. F ir st, the un dis pu te d fa c ts at tr ia l su g g e st that these tre es so interfe red w ith the 4000 volt power line and required so much t rimming that they would not survive. Second, in rec og nition of t he abilit y of any utilit y ease ment holder to secure the
sa fe e xer c ise of

its ri g hts , w he the r tho se ri g hts are ob ta ine d by pr e sc ri pti on or g rant, the Rol lin s mu st prese nt proof that the f

ailure of NES to inform, rather than the dang er pose d by the tree s to the safe
u s e o f t h e e a s e m e n t , w a s t h e c a u s e o f t h e r e m o v a l

. T h e R o l l i n s p r e s e n t n o s u c h p r o o f. Th e on ly showing in the rec ord is a speculation on the part of the landowner as to options which they might-9-

have ta ken had NES ag ree d to c hang e the nature of its e aseme nt rig ht. This Court cannot disreg ard the eleme ntary

provisions of our commo n l aw concerning e aseme nts and apply a theory of neg lige nce which lacks the key elements: the bre ach of a re cog nized dutywhich proximately cause s in ju r y to th e p la intiff. S ee McClenahan v . Cooley , 806 S.W .2d 767, 774 (Tenn. 1991) . The trial
co u rt fo u n d that NES rea sonably maintained its ease ment, and the pr oof of the r ecor d does not preponde rate ag ainst that finding. See Tenn. R. App. 13(d) . The orde r of the trial court is affirme d in all respec ts. The cause is r emande d for further proce eding s as nece ssary

. Costs of this appeal a re a sse sse d a g a ins t th e app e lla nts

.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE