[where's_the_Outrage?]

" on the land of another person,"

The way I read this is that the neighbor would have to injure the tree on the owner's land, he can injure the tree on his own land. Didn't see the term "setback" in the statute. That said, if the owner can show the neighbor pulled roots from the owner's land thereby injuring the tree he may have a case.

But the last line of the statute is interesting: This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land.

And since the owner still has the tree he therefore has the just value of the lumber.

[T.B. Yoits]

The way I read this is that the neighbor would have to injure the tree on the owner's land, he can injure the tree on his own land.

You can't willfully cause loss to a neighbor without facing repercussions.

This is a tort at minimum; the construction neighbor caused a loss to the neighbor with the tree who's now forced to pay for removal of the tree. Nature doesn't follow property lines and the construction neighbor can't argue that it was an unforeseen event. Of course, the poorly written article doesn't mention any variances or issues identified when the permits were filed.

I mentioned the setback because, depending on the town, the construction neighbor may not be able to justify digging right up to the property line, even for a retaining wall. While a setback is for buildings, it can also be for any construction, including driveways, depending on local laws. The tree might have survived if the digging wasn't right up to the line.

On a related note, if the tree had fallen on the excavation crew, the excavation company and the construction homeowner would be responsible for the deaths and/or injuries.