Prescriptive Easements and Herbicide Use in the Maine Woods: Lessons from S.D. Warren Co. v. Vernon
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in S.D. Warren Co. v. Vernon clarifies two key legal doctrines: the elements required to establish a private prescriptive easement, and the limits of that easement’s use—especially when evolving land use brings in new concerns, like transporting hazardous materials.
The Dispute
Michael Vernon owned a parcel of land in Brighton Plantation, Maine. A dirt road—formerly a public way—ran through his land and provided access to property owned by S.D. Warren Company, a commercial forestry operation. Although the road had been discontinued as a town way in 1927, Warren continued using it for decades.
Tensions escalated in 1990 when Vernon noticed Warren trucks carrying herbicide drums. After Vernon blocked the road with his pickup, Warren filed suit, claiming both private and public prescriptive easement rights.
What the Court Found
The trial court held that:
-
Warren had a valid private prescriptive easement over the road;
-
But Warren could not use the road to transport herbicides;
-
And the general public also had a prescriptive right to use the road.
Both parties appealed.
Key Holdings on Appeal
✅
Private Prescriptive Easement Upheld
The Law Court affirmed Warren’s right to use the road. The evidence showed:
-
Continuous use for 20+ years, dating back to the 1930s;
-
Open and notorious use, including by Warren employees and contractors;
-
Adverse use, not dependent on permission from Vernon or his predecessors.
Even intermittent use was deemed sufficient because it reflected the typical pattern of a forestry road.
❌
No Right to a Public Easement
The Court vacated the lower court’s finding of a public easement. Sporadic hunting and recreational use by individuals wasn’t enough to establish a prescriptive right for the general public. In Maine, recreational use of “wild and uncultivated land” is presumed permissive unless clearly shown otherwise.
❌
Herbicide Ban Overturned
The Court ruled that the trial court applied the wrong legal test in restricting herbicide transport. The scope of a prescriptive easement is defined by the use established during the prescriptive period. Because Warren’s historic use involved commercial logging operations—known to involve hazardous materials—the transport of herbicides did not impose any greater burden on Vernon’s land.
Legal Takeaways
-
Prescriptive easements can arise from intermittent but consistent commercial use over time.
-
The scope of a prescriptive easement grows out of historical use—but reasonable evolutions (like modern forestry tools) are allowed.
-
Public rights over private land require stricter proof than private easements; occasional hunting access won’t suffice.
-
Courts will not block a lawful use just because it makes the servient owner uncomfortable—unless the use imposes an unreasonable new burden.
Produced by ChatGPT
