## Facts

- Elva Farmer owned a tract of land in Kentucky.
- Kentucky Utilities Co. maintained an electric transmission line that crossed above a portion of Farmer’s property; the supporting poles were on adjacent land rather than on Farmer’s tract.
- Kentucky Utilities claimed a prescriptive easement to keep the lines over Farmer’s land.
- The land had been unoccupied for several years before the dispute.
- Kentucky Utilities had previously entered the property to clear growth beneath the lines, leading to a prior claim for damage that was settled.
- In 1980, Kentucky Utilities determined that trees and other vegetation under and near the transmission lines needed clearing to prevent interference with the lines.
- Kentucky Utilities hired a contractor who entered Farmer’s property with workers and equipment and cut and removed trees and other vegetation beneath and close to the lines.
- Farmer (and her husband) sued Kentucky Utilities for trespass and damages based on the entry and clearing activity.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found Kentucky Utilities had a prescriptive easement for the overhanging wires but ruled it had no right to enter Farmer’s land to clear vegetation, rejecting the utility’s argument that a right of entry followed from the easement.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the right to keep the lines necessarily carried a right to enter the land beneath the lines for maintenance and repairs.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted review.

## Issues

1. Does a prescriptive easement to maintain overhead electric transmission lines include a secondary easement allowing the utility to enter the servient land beneath and near the lines to perform maintenance, including vegetation control?
2. If such a secondary easement exists, what limits govern its use, and must the factfinder determine whether the utility’s clearing exceeded what was reasonably necessary?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a prescriptive easement for overhead transmission lines includes a secondary easement: a right to enter the servient estate beneath and in the immediate area of the lines for maintenance and repair work, including reasonable vegetation clearing.
- The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals on the existence of a right of entry tied to the prescriptive easement.
- The Court ruled, however, that the utility’s entry and cutting are not automatically justified in full; the secondary easement is limited by necessity and reasonableness and cannot place an undue burden on the landowner.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Kentucky Utilities, in clearing trees and vegetation, went beyond what was reasonably necessary for maintenance of the lines and therefore committed a trespass to that extent.

## Legal Principles

- A primary easement carries with it ancillary rights needed for its use; these are often described as secondary easements.
- A utility holding a prescriptive easement for overhead lines may enter the servient land beneath and near the lines when entry is needed to inspect, maintain, or repair the line and to remove vegetation that threatens safe operation.
- The secondary right of entry is not unlimited; it is confined to what is reasonably necessary to use and maintain the primary easement.
- The easement holder must exercise the secondary right in a reasonable manner and may not impose an undue burden on the servient estate.
- Whether particular maintenance or clearing activity exceeded the allowed scope is a fact-dependent question that may require further findings and can support damages if the utility’s conduct went beyond what necessity and reason allow.

## Conclusion

Farmer held title to land crossed by Kentucky Utilities’ overhead transmission lines, and the dispute turned on whether the utility’s prescriptive right to keep those lines also carried a right to enter the land to clear vegetation. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that it did: a prescriptive easement for overhanging lines includes a secondary right of entry for maintenance, including reasonable vegetation control. Because that right is limited to what is reasonably necessary and may not unduly burden the owner, the Court remanded for a determination of whether Kentucky Utilities’ 1980 clearing exceeded the proper scope and therefore amounted to trespass in part.


Farmer v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 642 S.W.2d 579 (1982)