Vaughan v. USMI Properties Five, LLC
A rotten oak tree on USMI's land fell onto Vaughan's house; the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding Florida's 'Massachusetts rule' (Gallo and Scott) categorically immunizes landowners for harm caused by trees on their property. The Sixth District reversed, holding the Massachusetts rule applies only to healthy trees' encroaching branches and roots, and that under McCain's foreseeable-zone-of-risk framework a landowner who knows a tree is rotten owes adjoining owners a duty of reasonable care.
📄 Read the official opinion (6th DCA) →
Florida Court Tracker flags decisions like this the week they come down, sorted by practice area, alongside your research platform. See what else changed in Premises Liability →
Key facts
- USMI Properties Five, LLC owned land with a large oak tree that was rotten or diseased; the tree fell onto Vaughan's adjoining property and damaged his house.
- Vaughan sued USMI for the damage; the trial court granted USMI's motion for judgment on the pleadings, relying on the 'Massachusetts rule' as stated in prior Florida cases to grant categorical immunity to landowners for tree-related harm.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the first Florida appellate decision to expressly cabin the 'Massachusetts rule' to healthy trees and to confirm that ordinary McCain duty analysis governs claims arising from a known diseased or decayed tree… — full analysis with a trial
Get decisions like this in your practice area every week: free for 14 days
The rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Your practice areas first
- Plain-English holdings & why it matters
- Statutes & rules that take effect in your area
- One Friday briefing for your team
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.