Property Owner Liability:
HB 599, titled the "Fallen Tree Act," creates a new section of Florida law governing liability for damage caused by trees, shrubs, or branches located on private property. The bill states that a property owner is liable for damage to neighboring property caused by a tree or shrub on that owner’s land, with ownership determined by where the tree or shrub is rooted. It also preserves a property owner’s existing right to use self-help to trim or remove branches and roots encroaching onto their own property.
The bill further allows trees or shrubs growing on two or more parcels to be removed by any of the affected property owners after 30 days’ written notice by certified mail and posting on the other parcels. It excludes parcels larger than 5 acres from its application and would take effect July 1, 2025. The measure is aimed at shifting responsibility for damage from the neighbor who suffers the loss to the owner of the tree or shrub that caused it, unless another rule or exception applies.
If enacted, HB 599 would significantly alter Florida property and tort law by imposing statutory liability on property owners for damage caused by trees or shrubs on their land, even absent a negligence showing. It would create a new cause of action or liability standard for fallen trees, branches, and shrubs, while leaving intact the traditional right to trim encroaching vegetation on one’s own property. The bill would also establish a notice-and-posting process for removing vegetation spanning multiple parcels and carve out larger rural parcels over 5 acres, affecting homeowners, insurers, and neighboring landowners.
The available context suggests the bill was not advanced out of committee, as it died in the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad support or opposition. Based on the bill’s purpose statement, the measure appears designed to address perceived unfairness to property owners who bear repair costs when neighboring trees fall, but its failure to move indicates it likely faced at least procedural or policy resistance.
The main point of contention is the bill’s departure from the current negligence-based approach: it would make the tree owner liable for damage caused by the tree or shrub itself, rather than only when the owner was negligent. That shift could raise concerns among property owners about expanded exposure to claims and among insurers about increased losses and premiums. Another likely issue is the bill’s notice-and-posting mechanism for vegetation on multiple parcels, which could create disputes over ownership, notice sufficiency, and removal rights. The 5-acre exemption also suggests a policy distinction between suburban residential lots and larger properties, which may have been debated as to fairness and scope.