replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A cannot
collect damages to his shed.


--
for full context, visit http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ed-535499-.htm