Hayes v. Carrigan
2017 Ohio 5867
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Neighbors in Indian Hill, Ohio: Jeffrey Hayes (plaintiff) and Pamela Carrigan (defendant) disputed dying bamboo/plant damage, loud music, and early-morning mowing.
- Hayes sued alleging Carrigan applied herbicide damaging bamboo/shrubs, asserting trespass, nuisance, and willful destruction; sought compensatory, punitive, treble damages, and fees.
- Carrigan counterclaimed that Hayes’s invasive bamboo, animals, loud music, and mowing trespassed and were a nuisance; she sought damages and injunctive relief.
- Bench trial produced testimony from both parties, Indian Hill rangers, landscapers, and photos; Hayes submitted an Evans Landscaping estimate for replacement costs (admitted over objection).
- Trial court (March/Oct 2016) awarded $11,000 to each party for trespass and dismissed other claims; both parties appealed and Hayes cross-appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed the trespass awards for both parties, affirmed dismissal of other claims, and entered judgment finding against each party on their trespass claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carrigan proved trespass by Hayes (bamboo encroachment, music, mowing) | Hayes argued vegetation growth and noise/mowing are not trespass; Carrigan’s proof of intent insufficient | Carrigan argued Hayes’ bamboo and conduct invaded her property and caused damage/nuisance | Court: Reversed award to Carrigan — insufficient evidence Hayes acted intentionally re: bamboo; noise/mowing better characterized as nuisance and not proven substantial |
| Whether Hayes proved trespass by Carrigan (herbicide killing bamboo/shrubs) | Hayes argued Carrigan applied weed-killer that ran onto his property causing damage | Carrigan said she applied general "weed & feed" on her property and cold weather may have caused damage | Court: Reversed award to Hayes — trial evidence did not prove damages with required certainty and did not establish reckless intent for treble damages under R.C. 901.51 |
| Whether treble damages under R.C. 901.51 applied for damaged vegetation | Hayes asserted R.C. 901.51 permits treble damages for injury to plants and Carrigan acted recklessly | Carrigan disputed either applicability to bamboo or the requisite recklessness | Court: No error in dismissing R.C. 901.51 claim — statute’s applicability to bamboo unclear and recklessness not established |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of damages evidence (Evans Landscaping estimate) | Hayes relied on the estimate to prove economic damages ($8,657.43) and total $11,000 | Carrigan objected to foundation/hearsay; argued damages were speculative and noneconomic harms unproven | Court: Estimate admitted without proper foundation was erroneous; damages not proven with reasonable certainty; judgment for Hayes on trespass reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 126 Ohio St.3d 210, 932 N.E.2d 313 (Ohio 2010) (nuisance damages for annoyance require physical discomfort and must be real, material, and substantial)
- Wooten v. Knisley, 79 Ohio St.3d 282, 680 N.E.2d 1245 (Ohio 1997) (definition of acting recklessly for criminal statutory purposes)
- Rickel v. Komaromi, 144 Conn.App. 775, 73 A.3d 851 (Conn. App. 2013) (discussing continuing trespass theories for plantings that spread)
- Rababy v. Metter, 30 N.E.3d 1018 (Ohio App. 2015) (tree growth/debris does not constitute trespass absent intentional conduct)
- Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 173, 551 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1990) (intentional tort requires intent to cause the consequence or substantial certainty of the consequence)