Client Alert: Tree Liability in D.C., Maryland, Virginia & Delaware: A 2026 Update
Date: August 14, 2026
Maryland:
In Maryland, there is generally no cause of action or right to file a lawsuit for tree encroachment and remedies are limited to “self-help.” For incidents concerning a fallen tree, Maryland adheres to the “Massachusetts rule” that “neither a possessor of land, nor a vendor, lessor, or other transferor, is liable for physical harm caused to others outside of the land by a natural condition of the land.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, §363(1) (1965). There is, however, an exception for “urban landowners” in one important respect given that traffic is relatively frequent, land is less heavily wooded and acreage is small in such areas. Persons who possess land in an “urban area [are] subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from [their] failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway.” Id. at §363(2). This exception imposes a burden on the injured party to show that the tree posed a danger and that the owner was aware of the danger or should have known of the danger. Hensley v. Montgomery County, 25 Md. App. 361, 364 (1975). For landowners who do not own land in urban areas, the “rural rule” applies. The “rural rule” provides that landowners in rural areas do not have a duty to inspect because of how impractical it would be to impose such a duty on the owner of land that has such vast and varying vegetation. Bookhultz v. Maryland Midland Railway, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1061 (D. Md. 1988). The law does not provide an exact definition of the line between “urban” and “rural” property for this purpose. Courts will review the specific area from which a tree falls based on the levels of population, vegetation and usage to determine which rule applies.Irrespective of what type of land a property owner possesses, Maryland law is clear that owners are not liable for “acts of God” or weather-related incidents that result in a tree causing damage to a person or another’s property. Acts of God or weather- related incidents are acts that are no fault of the owner but, rather, are caused by occurrences out of the owner’s control (i.e., a lightning strike).
In sum, if a tree falls in Maryland, there are four factors that must be reviewed to determine if the owner of a fallen tree faces liability: (1) is the property from which the tree fell “urban”; (b) did the owner have actual notice that the tree was dying, decaying or dead; (c) should the owner have known about the status of the tree; and (d) did the owner take reasonable steps to prevent the accident.
District of Columbia:
DC follows a similar approach to Maryland for “routine” incursions by neighboring trees. Specifically, the court has endorsed a modified version of the Massachusetts rule, which provides that landowners are not liable for nuisances caused by trees or plants encroaching on neighboring property. Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144, 148 (D.C. 1950). Similarly, DC permits self-help rather than allowing a legal cause of action to cure the nuisance of encroaching roots, leaves and branches. Adjoining landowners are permitted to cut back encroaching plants to the extent they invade their property.However, this rule has not been extended to more substantial damage resulting from falling trees or similar unsafe conditions. In DC, landowners are “held to the duty of common prudence in maintaining his property in a way to prevent injury to his neighboring property.” Dudley v. Meadowbrook, Inc., 166 A.2d 743, 744 (D.C. 1961). While the DC Court of Appeals left open the issue of whether a landowner necessarily has a duty to inspect trees for potential harm in certain circumstances, it has allowed claims alleging negligence by a landowner to proceed. Negligence in such cases is determined in part on whether the landowner was aware of the hazardous condition or made inspections in prior years. Accordingly, when a property owner or manager receives notice of hazards posed by their property, including trees, they should promptly act to cure the condition.
Delaware:
In Delaware, the general rule is that a landowner has the right to trim or remove any part of a tree that encroaches on the landowner’s property if the trimming or removal does not harm the health or stability of the tree. Law v. Lee, 1988 WL 67851, at *3 (Del. Super. June 21, 1988). The landowner who trims or removes the encroaching tree is generally responsible for the costs and disposal of the cuttings.Those landowners who trim or remove the encroaching tree may be liable for damages if the trimming or removal causes injury or harm to the tree owner or a third party. Liability may depend on the degree of negligence, recklessness or malice involved in the trimming or removal, as well as the extent and nature of the injury or harm.
Speaking of negligence, in Delaware, a landowner generally has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the trees on their land and to prevent them from creating a nuisance or a danger to others. This duty also applies to a community association that owns or controls the common areas where trees are located. Typically, a landowner is not liable for injury or damage caused by a tree unless the injury or damage was reasonably foreseeable and resulted from the landowner’s negligence or wrongful act.
Virginia:
Virginia takes a different approach from Maryland, the District of Columbia and Delaware. In Fancher v. Fagella, 274 Va. 549 (2007), the Virginia Supreme Court adopted the “Hawaii Rule.” The Hawaii Rule focuses on whether encroaching vegetation causes or threatens actual harm, rather than on whether the plant is considered “noxious.” Under the Hawaii Rule, trees and plants are not nuisances merely because they cast shade, drop leaves, flowers or fruit, or because their branches or roots encroach on adjoining property above or below ground. Id. at 556. Ordinary leaves, cones and similar natural debris from a tree on neighboring property do not, by themselves, create liability.The analysis changes when encroaching vegetation causes actual harm or poses an imminent danger of actual harm to adjoining property. In that circumstance, the vegetation may be treated as a nuisance. The tree owner may be responsible for resulting harm and may be required to cut back encroaching branches or roots. Id. The rule addresses physical harm to neighboring property, not merely the ordinary inconvenience associated with shade or falling leaves.
Whether the owner must trim and how much work is required depends on the equities of the particular case. A court will weigh the burden of removal, including the potential cost and any risk that cutting roots or branches could destabilize or seriously injure the tree, against the harm or danger to the neighboring property. Id. In a residential setting, a court may be more willing to impose a duty to protect an adjoining lot than it would be for a large tract of historically forested or agricultural land. The court may order trimming or more extensive removal, award monetary compensation or determine that damages and self-help provide an adequate remedy; complete removal is not automatic.
Virginia also preserves a right of self-help. Whether or not the vegetation is a nuisance or is causing harm, an adjoining landowner may, at the adjoining owner’s own expense, cut back encroaching branches or roots to the property line. Id. Though, this right generally does not entitle the adjoining landowner to cut down the entire tree without the tree owner’s permission.
Virginia does not generally require landowners to inspect trees. The Virginia Supreme Court has stated that “precedent doesn’t support a duty on the part of a landowner to inspect and cut down sickly trees that have the possibility of falling on a public roadway and inflicting injury.” Cline v. Dunlora South, LLC, 284 Va. 102, 108–09 (2012). However, this does not eliminate all responsibility. Landowners must refrain from affirmative acts that make adjoining property more dangerous, and liability for harm caused by a natural condition generally arises only when the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Id. at 108–09. As a practical matter, an association or landowner that receives notice of a potentially hazardous tree should investigate promptly and take reasonable steps to address it.
Conclusion:
These rules apply to trees located on an owner's private property and to trees in an association’s common elements. Boards and managers should respond promptly to reports of hazardous conditions, document the condition and notice received, and seek legal or arboricultural guidance when a tree presents a significant risk or a neighbor dispute cannot be resolved informally. If your association needs assistance with a tree-related issue, please contact our Community Associations Practice Group.The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.