In what circumstances will a plaintiff be able to bring a claim for damages against the owner of the property for failing to prevent the spread of a disease-infected tree?

Tucker L.J. said at pp. 876-77: There can be no doubt since the decision in Noble v. Harrison that whether the claim is based on nuisance or negligence the plaintiff in such an action as the present must establish either that the defendant knew of the danger or that he ought to have known of it. "Ought to have known" cannot mean more than "would have known if he had taken the precaution which a reasonable landowner would take." … I am, accordingly, of opinion that, once the presence of disease is eliminated as an element of which the defendants were or should have been aware, the plaintiffs, in order to succeed, must show there was something in the appearance of this tree which should have indicated to the defendants the probability of danger. In this I think they failed. No witness who had seen the tree when growing said it looked dangerous.