See generally Thomas R. Trenkner, Annotation, Liability of Private Oumer or Occupant of Land Abutting Highway for Injuries or Damage Resulting from Tree or Limb Falling onto Highway, 94 A.L.R.3d 1160 § 3 (1979). Even though other jurisdictions may be rethinking their approach to landowner liability, South Carolina follows the traditional rural and urban distinction. Cf. Ford v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 328 S.C. 481, 492 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.1997). The policy reasons which were present at the inception of the rural landowner rule still exist in rural South Carolina today. See Prosser and Keeton, supra, § 57. To restrict or reverse the rural landowner rule would “impose a new and unusual burden upon the owners of forest lands.” Chambers v. Whelen, 44 F.2d 340, 341 (4th Cir.1930) (<HOLDING>). Staples also argues that constructive notice
holding that when the government takes property by flooding it the government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels holding that california governmental tort immunity statute would apply if decayed eucalyptus tree limb fell on user of governmental property and would not apply to injuries caused to nonusers on adjacent property holding the department liable for the fall of a tree that stood on private property abutting a highway holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by  recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property