Court Opinion

ID: 9767508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:20:47.440528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.529458
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. Plaintiff Bob Driggers filed this tort suit against codefendants Buddy Neal and Ken and Louann Locke. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was driving his vehicle north on Tenth Street in Arkadelphia and, while crossing the intersection of Tenth and Main, defendant Buddy Neal negligently drove his vehicle into plaintiffs vehicle, and as a result, plaintiff suffered damages. In the same complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants Ken and Louann Locke negligently allowed a “hedge row of holly bushes and other shrubs” to “extend out to such a distance that requires vehicles traveling north on Tenth Street to actually enter the intersection of Tenth and Main before traffic traveling east on Main Street can be seen” and that their negligence was a concurrent proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages. Defendants Ken and Louann Locke moved for summary judgment on the ground that landowners have no duty to maintain their property so that motorists have an unobstructed view of intersections. The trial court granted summary judgment. The majority opinion holds that a possessor of land can, with impunity, allow holly bushes and other shrubs to grow to such height and size that they obstruct the view of motorists. I dissent. The question of whether a duty is owed between parties is a matter of law. Van Houten v. Pritchard, 315 Ark. 688, 870 S.W.2d 377 (1994). In general, it is the duty of all persons to use ordinary care for their own safety and the safety of others, unless a statute or rule of law provides otherwise. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts § 53 (5th ed. 1984). The inquiry then becomes whether the law provides that a possessor of land is immune from liability for injuries caused by his or her lack of ordinary care in maintaining holly bushes and other shrubs. A. Arkansas Case The only Arkansas case that discusses even a part of the issue in this case is Ben M. Hogan Co. v. Krug, 234 Ark. 280, 351 S.W.2d 451 (1961). The majority opinion tacitly admits that case does not expressly exempt a possessor of land from the duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of land. Thus, there is no law providing immunity for a possessor of land who allows ornamental shrubs to grow so that they block the vision of motorists. The holding of this court then should be that the possessor of land has a duty to exercise ordinary care of land so that ornamental shrubs do not obstruct the vision of motorists. Further, the cited case actually supports this dissent. In that case we held that the circuit court erred in denying the defendant landowner’s motion for summary judgment because the defendant’s maintenance of a gravel pile was not negligent and was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries even though the pile obstructed the view of drivers at an intersection. Negligence and intervening cause were issues only because a duty was owed to motorists. In the case we wrote: That brings us to a consideration as to whether or not the appellant was negligent in maintaining on its property a gravel pile which it is alleged obscured the vision of the appellee as she drove the car toward the intersection of the haul road and the County Line Road where the accident occurred. This lessening of her sight distance by the gravel pile and the presence of growth of various kinds is alleged by the appellees to have brought about the accident. The piling of the gravel on his own property by Hogan was not of itself negligent and the only time that the gravel itself could have brought about an injury would have been if Hogan had negligently piled it on the County Road in such a way that a car might strike it or had it been stacked so close to the County Road that part of it had sloughed off and damaged vehicles or persons on the County Road. So far as the gravel piling is concerned, it could have remained in that spot at that height indefinitely without causing any damage. Therefore it cannot in any way be said that the gravel pile was of itself the proximate cause of the injuries of which the appellees complain. Id. at 284, 351 S.W.2d at 453. We then discussed proximate cause and articulated the applicable rule as follows: [T]he rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act — such a consequence, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, as might and ought to have been foreseen by the defendant as likely to flow from his act; the act must, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, operate as an efficient cause of the injury. Id. at 285, 351 S.W.2d at 453-54 (quoting Comment, Torts — Proximate Cause — Intervening Force, 1 Ark. L. Rev. 148, 152 (1947) (emphasis supplied by the court)). We concluded the opinion by holding that the hauling of gravel by a third person and the operation of the truck and trailer by that third party intervened and were sufficient to stand as the cause of the injury. Again, we would not have discussed negligence and proximate cause if there were no duty. In summary, the general rule is that one has a duty to use ordinary care for his or her own safety and for the safety of others, unless a statute or rule of law provides otherwise. Neither of the parties nor the majority opinion cites a statute or rule of law of this State providing immunity to the landowner. The general rule should apply, and the possessors of the land should be held to have owed a duty to maintain the ornamental shrubs so that they did not obstruct the vision of motorists. B. Law of Other Jurisdictions The traditional common-law rule is that the possessor of land is under no affirmative duty to remedy conditions of purely natural origin upon his land. Nichols v. Sitko, 510 N.E.2d 971 (Ill. App. 1987); Evans v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 So. 2d 231, rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 57 (5th ed. 1984); William J. Appel, Annotation, Liability of Private Landowner for Vegetation Obscuring View at Highway or Street Intersection, 69 A.L.R.4th 1092 (1989). The term “natural condition” of land means a condition that is not in any way the result of human activity. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 840(1) cmt. a (1979); see generally Prosser, supra; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 363 (1965). Ornamental shrubs are the result of human activity. The nonliability for failure to remedy natural conditions “originated in times when much land remained uncleared and any duty placed upon a landowner to cut or remove vegetation on his property would have been an onerous one.” William J. Appel, Annotation, Liability of Private Landowner For Vegetation Obscuring View at Highway or Street Intersection, 69 A.L.R.4th at 1098. Historically, the consideration most frequently invoked to support the rule of nonliability for natural conditions was that it was merely an embodiment of the principle that one should not be obligated to undertake affirmative conduct to aid or protect others. Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d 1121 (Cal. 1981); Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314 (1965); see generally, James, Scope of Duty in Negligence Cases 47 Nw. U. L. Rev. 778, 800-09 (1953); Dix W. Noel, Nuisances from Land in Its Natural Condition, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 772, 796-97, and n.102 (1943). This rule rested on the common law distinction between the infliction of harm and the failure to prevent it, or misfeasance and nonfeasance. Misfeasance was determined to exist when a defendant played some part in the creation of a risk. Nonfeasance occurred when a defendant failed to intervene on a plaintiffs behalf. Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d 1121 (Cal. 1981). Proponents of the rule of nonliability for natural conditions argued that a defendant’s failure to prevent a natural condition from causing harm was mere nonfeasance. A natural condition of the land was by definition, they argued, one which no human being had played a part in creating. Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d at 1122; see Dix W. Noel, Nuisances from Land in Its Natural Condition, 56 Harv. L. Rev. at 773. Therefore, no basis for liability existed because a duty to exercise reasonable care could not arise out of possession alone. Since there was no special relationship between the possessor of land and persons outside the premises, there could be no liability. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314, cmt. f (1965). Conversely, a defendant’s failure to prevent an artificial condition from causing harm constituted actionable misfeasance. Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d at 1126. Thus, the general rule has always been that a defendant has a duty to prevent an artificial condition from causing harm. The Restatement of Torts, in the material section, states this general rule as follows: § 364. Creation or Maintenance of Dangerous Artificial Conditions. A possessor of land is subject to liability to others outside of the land for physical harm caused by a structure or other artificial condition on the land, which the possessor realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of such harm, if (a) the possessor has created the condition, or (b) the condition is created by a third person with the possessor’s consent or acquiescence while the land is in his possession, or (c) the condition is created by a third person without the possessor’s consent or acquiescence, but reasonable care is not taken to make the condition safe after the possessor knows or should know of it. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 364 (1965). The general rule is that one owes a duty of ordinary care for the safety of others, unless a statute or rule of law provides otherwise. No statute or rule of law provides immunity for a possessor of land who maintains an artificial condition on his or her land. The holding in this case should be that the defendant possessors of land are not immune. The majority opinion circumvents the issue in part because it discusses at length cases that involve purely natural conditions. That is not the condition that is before us. It simply is not necessary for us to decide whether to follow those states and the District of Columbia that apply ordinary negligence principles in determining a possessor’s liability for harm caused by a natural condition. See Sprecher v. Adamson Cos., 636 P.2d 1121 (Cal. 1981), listing thirteen jurisdictions following that rule. Similarly, it is not necessary for us to decide whether to follow other jurisdictions that have begun applying ordinary negligence principles only in urban locations. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 363(2) and cmt. a (1965). We need only decide the case before us, and it involves maintenance of ornamental shrubs in an urban location. C. Public Policy In determining whether a duty exists, a court should consider the forseeability of harm, the degree of certainty of damages, the closeness of connection between defendant’s conduct and the damage, the moral blame for the conduct, who could have best prevented the damage, the policy of preventing future damage, and the overall consequences to the state for imposing a duty. The motor vehicle is deeply involved in today’s society, transportation, and economy. Automobile accidents result in a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and enormous expenses for medical care and property losses. It is manifest that sound public policy is to prevent the causes of automobile accidents whenever reasonable and practical. This policy dictates that roadways should be free from artificial hazards and that a possessor of land should be liable to motorists when he or she fails to exercise ordinary care in maintaining artificial conditions. The possessor of land can easily foresee that if he or she allows ornamental shrubs to obstruct the vision of motorists, the result can be car wrecks and the resulting injuries and damages. The connection is close, and the possessor of the land is the only one who can prevent the injury and damages. The correct public policy is obvious. The public policy solution proposed in the majority opinion requiring cities, counties, and states to purchase rights of way sufficient to allow for removal of shrubbery foliage simply misses the mark. The reasonable, sensible, fair and just solution is to place the duty on the party who can prevent the accident. The majority opinion refuses to place the duty where it belongs. Perhaps the members of the General Assembly and the members of the city councils will recognize where the duty should be, and perhaps they will pass laws that prevent a possessor of land from maintaining holly bushes and other ornamental shrubs that obstruct the view of motorists. I dissent.