1. The trial court and the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to an instruction with respect to common law trespass. Why was the instruction refused?
2. Why was the plaintiff’s negligence claim rejected?
3. Why should a plaintiff be entitled to recover for a trespass under circumstances where no actual harm has been shown?

Jasen, Judge
At issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff, who seeks to recover for injuries sustained when an overhanging limb from a neighbor’s maple tree fell and struck him, established a prima facie case of negligence and whether Trial Term erred, as a matter of law, in refusing to submit to the jury the cause of action sounding in common-law trespass.