Tennessee Court of Appeals Finds Planting Trees that Block View of Golf Course is Not a Nuisance

The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently decided whether it was considered a nuisance to block a neighbor’s view of a golf course with trees.  The case of Stibler v. The Country Club, Inc., No. E2014-00743-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1093638 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) is unique and has interesting facts.  In this situation the plaintiff filed suit against a country club that ran a golf course because the country club planted trees that blocked the plaintiff’s (who owned a neighboring property) view of the golf course.  The court first considered whether the planting of trees violated the covenants and restrictions for the subdivision.  There was nothing in the actual covenants and restrictions that were violated by the planting of these trees.  As a result, the court next turned to the issue of to whether blocking of a view to a golf course by planting trees is considered nuisance under Tennessee law.

There is no question that trees can constitute a nuisance in certain circumstances (See prior post on this issue).  In fact, the Tennessee Supreme Court has provided guidance specifically regarding trees and nuisance stating that “encroaching trees and plants may be regarded as a nuisance when they cause actual harm or pose an imminent danger of actual harm to adjoining property.”  Stibler at 4 (quoting Lane v. W. J. Curry & Sons, 92 S.W.3d 355, 364 (Tenn. 2002)). 

In the Stibler case at issue, it was undisputed that the country club planted trees on its own property and that the trees did not encroach on plaintiff’s property in any way.  Further, these trees did not cause any physical damage to the plaintiff’s property.  The sole basis for plaintiff’s claim is that there was economic damage caused to the plaintiff’s property resulting from the loss of a golf course view.  The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that losing a view of an adjacent golf course on a country club’s property due to the planting of trees is “simply insufficient to give rise to a claim for nuisance.” Stibler at 4

Tennessee Supreme Court Finds Failure to Meet Pre-Suit Notice Requirements for Healthcare Liability Action Results in Dismissal Without Prejudice

A recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision, Samuel E. Foster v. Walter William Chiles, III, M.D., et al., No. E2012-01780-SC-R11-CV, 2015 WL 343872 (Tenn. 2015), decided the appropriate remedy for non-compliance with pre-suit notice requirements in T.C.A. § 29-26-121 for a healthcare liability action under Tennessee law.  Specifically, T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(1) provides the following requirements: 

(a)(1) Any person, or that person's authorized agent, asserting a potential claim for health care liability shall give written notice of the potential claim to each health care provider that will be a named defendant at least sixty (60) days before the filing of a complaint based upon health care liability in any court of this state.

(2) The notice shall include:

(A) The full name and date of birth of the patient whose treatment is at issue;

(B) The name and address of the claimant authorizing the notice and the relationship to the patient, if the notice is not sent by the patient;

(C) The name and address of the attorney sending the notice, if applicable;

(D) A list of the name and address of all providers being sent a notice; and

(E) A HIPAA compliant medical authorization permitting the provider receiving the notice to obtain complete medical records from each other provider being sent a notice.

In the Foster case the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant on March 17, 2011.  Prior to the filing of this first lawsuit, counsel properly provided defendants with pre-suit notice as required under T.C.A. § 29-26-121.  The plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed the case on May 6, 2011. 

On May 4, 2012, the plaintiff filed a new complaint regarding the same claims against the same defendants.  This time the plaintiff did not comply with the pre-suit notice requirements for the second file...