I'm having some cognitive dissonance around my understanding of falling-tree liability.
Person A has a mostly-dead tree on their property - poised to fall across the property line on to Person B's property.
The way I understand it, once the tree falls on to Person B's property, it's 100% Person B's problem to remove it.
The dissonance comes when I think that, if Person B were to cut that tree while it were standing, Person A would have legal recourse against them.
In other words, the one who has control over the tree has no liability for the tree when it falls whereas the person whose property the tree falls on has no control over the tree but suffers the damage.
Take it a step further where the tree falls on somebody's house or outbuilding....
Doesn't compute for me.... and it seems like legal stuff is, in the final analysis, logical..... but this seems not.
What am I missing?