# California legal: responsibility of city in maintenance **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050 "2003-11-08T06:36:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/1 "2003-11-08T06:36:53Z")
My inlaws had their car parked in front of their house in the street. A branch from a tree owned by the city broke off and fell on the car doing some $2k worth of damage. A couple particulars: - Several branches from other trees in the neighborhood had broken off recently (all from the same types of trees planted at the same time). - The city had done a lesser job of pruning the trees in general, and this tree in particular this year. What is the liability of the city? The way I see it, if my tree falls on my neighbors car, I’m responsible. It really doesn’t matter what intent I did or didn’t have, or whether I was negligent in caring for the tree; it was my tree, and therefore is my responsiblity. I see my in-laws situation as the same. It was the City’s tree, and therefore their fault, and their negligence in trimming is just icing on the cake. It may not surprise you to hear that the city sees things differently. My in-laws filed a claim and after an investigation were told > [@](#): > > In order for there to be liability on the part of a public entity, there must be a dangerous and defective condition of public property, known to the public entity and a failure by the public entity to take any action which could have prevented the accident. In the alternative there must have been a negligent act or omission committed by a City Employee. The branch failure was due to an internal defect in the tree that was not known by the City prior to the incident. This is considered an act of nature, and we cannot accept the liability for your loss. What is the actual legal responsibility of a City (in California) when their property damages private property (when in a public place)? Is it as they say, that negligence must be proven? Or is it as I say, that damage done by them is their responsiblity? On a practical level, I’m going to make a few calls and see what I can wrangle for them, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll go to small claims court to see what can be done. I appreciate any insights. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/2 "2003-11-08T16:02:16Z")
My city is full of trees too. The city here is responsible for any tree branches hanging over a city street whether its mine or theirs. So, if my tree hangs lower than 12’ over the street then I can call the city Forester & have them come check it & do something about it. As a matter of fact, I did that recently & he came out & cut it back. I can’t see them being responsible if they don’t know about it or at least that seems to be what the city forester & city public works director told me. Your city laws may not be the same. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/3 "2003-11-08T20:50:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > **The way I see it, if my tree falls on my neighbors car, I’m responsible. It really doesn’t matter what intent I did or didn’t have, or whether I was negligent in caring for the tree; it was my tree, and therefore is my responsiblity.** This is not true. Liability rests on negligence. There is no absolute liability in these kind of cases, unless it is an “attractive nuisance” situation, which it is not. The city’s contention is that it was not negligent and is not responsible. The city claims that the tree was defective, but it had no knowledge of that defect and consequently is not liable. > [@](#): > > Is it as they say, that negligence must be proven? Or is it as I say, that damage done by them is their responsiblity? The plaintiff always has the burden of proof. It is up to your in-laws to prove that the city was negligent. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/4 "2003-11-08T20:55:37Z")
Well, now that they know that the tree is defective, they have a responsibility to prune it, right? ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/5 "2003-11-08T22:19:36Z")
“Well, now that they know that the tree is defective, they have a responsibility to prune it, right?” In my case, yes. I don’t think that defective is as important as ‘dangerous’. When I reported a dangerous tree, the city was there within an hour. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/6 "2003-11-08T23:25:23Z")
I’ve been involved in some damage claims against a city. They aren’t easy to win in cases like you described. The city is likely to state something like “it’s a well known fact that trees are natural plants, and that on occasion their branches can break off and fall, especially during bad weather. This is a normal and customary feature of trees, and the city can not be held responsible for it.” And a judge may find that reasonable. You are also likely to face questions like: - if this tree branch was dangerous, when did you report it to the city? - if this tree branch was so dangerous, why did you park your car underneath it? You’ll need to have good answers for those questions. Finally, > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > **and if that doesn’t work, they’ll go to small claims court to see what can be done.** Here in Minnesota (and probably other states), you can’t sue the city in small claims court. You have to file a claim against the city with a special claims board set up for this. You can appeal their decision (in District Court, I believe) but even in an appeal, there are limits to the amount of damages you can claim against a city. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/7 "2003-11-09T04:22:29Z")
**barbitu8** wrote > [@](#): > > This is not true. Liability rests on negligence. There is no absolute liability in these kind of cases, unless it is an “attractive nuisance” situation, which it is not. I’m sorry to question, but what are your qualifications on California law? Do you have practical knowledge? first hand knowledge? Or merely opinion? For **handy** and other future posters, I do appreciate the kindness of your good opinions, but unless you have actual experience or other firsthand knowledge, I’ll appreciate your avoiding this thread. I’m sorry to be harsh, but I’m exclusively looking for facts based on direct knowledge or experience with California law. This isn’t a hypothetical question and I already have an opinion. \*\* [t-bonham@scc.net](mailto:t-bonham@scc.net)\*\*, I appreciate your experience and the point that I hadn’t even thought of that small claims court may not be an option. I was of the assumption that anyone could sue anyone in small claims court as long as the amount is under some cap. ---
**Author:** ![racer72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/racer72/32/3075_2.png) [@racer72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racer72)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/8 "2003-11-09T12:14:36Z")
Bill H, the posts are legally correct. In order to the city to pay a claim, negligence will have to be proven. The city cannot and will not accept responsibility for things they have no control over. If the tree had been reported as a danger and the city did nothing, they would have a claim. It is is the same if you hit a pothole and ruin a wheel on your car. If no one tells the city about the pothole, your never going to prove negligence. You can go to [the Free Advice Forum](http://forum.freeadvice.com/) and ask your question there and you will get the same response. And yes, there are a couple of California lawyers that are regulars to that forum. I will guarantee you will get the same answers there as you did here. ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/9 "2003-11-09T15:45:10Z")
“For handy and other future posters, I do appreciate the kindness of your good opinions, but unless you have actual experience or other firsthand knowledge,” As I said, I already went through this a few times with my city. Also laws vary from city to city in California & you didn’t give what city you’re talking about (“What is the actual legal responsibility of a City (in California”) how can we give you the law? " Here in Minnesota (and probably other states), you can’t sue the city in small claims court. " I’m in california & I sued my city once in small claims, but I did have to ask them for the money first. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/10 "2003-11-09T17:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*Well, now that they know that the tree is defective, they have a responsibility to prune it, right? \*\* That would definitely be a factor in showing negligence. Whether there was or was not negligence is up to the trier of the facts, after being told the law by the judge (the legal criteria for “negligence.”) So one cannot make a definitive conclusion upon one factor alone. How much time elapsed after their attaining knowledge and the “accident”? And other factors. Bill, what I stated is the common law, extant in all the states except as modified or abrogated by statute. Cal. may have a special statute imposing strict liability on the city for certain injuries. But I doubt it, and by postings by others well versed in Cal. law, that appears not to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![Phnord\_Prephect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/df705f/32.png) [@Phnord\_Prephect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phnord_Prephect)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/11 "2003-11-09T18:24:08Z")
Was the tree on public or private property? If it was on public, then it’s the city’s tree, right? If its the city’s tree, then they know it’s there. If it’s there, it might fall. They, therefore, knew it might fall. The city has a crew which handles falling trees. The city did not send the crew to the tree, either to cut it down or make some assessment of its condition. The city, therefore, KNEW the tree might fall and did nothing. It’s their responsibility unless the law says otherwise, right? Who makes the laws? Makes sense to me. :::shrug::: ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/12 "2003-11-09T19:42:42Z")
The city maintained that it was an internal defect, not observable externally, and did not know of the defect. If true, it cannot be held liable since no negligence was shown. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/13 "2003-11-09T20:37:33Z")
Thanks all. From here and other places, it seems that Governmental entities have different liabilities than private citizens, and in fact are only liable if negligence can be demonstrated. **barbitu8** wrote > [@](#): > > The city maintained that it was an internal defect, not observable externally, and did not know of the defect. If true, it cannot be held liable since no negligence was shown. Not only that, but now I’m thinking that the pruning that was done, though sub-standard, in fact demonstrates prudence (prunence?) and really is a strong counter-argument to my claim of negligence. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/14 "2003-11-09T23:05:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* > \*\*Thanks all. From here and other places, it seems that Governmental entities have different liabilities than private citizens, and in fact are only liable if negligence can be demonstrated. > \*\* Same liability as any citizen: only liable if negligent except for certain exceptions. The common law general rule was that the sovereign is immune from suits. The USA has allowed claims against it in the Claims court and all states and other governmental agencies have allowed actions against them, generally speaking. But if a government entity has not so allowed, it is immune from any suit. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/15 "2003-11-09T23:23:34Z")
**barbitu8** wrote > [@](#): > > Same liability as any citizen: only liable if negligent except for certain exceptions. So you’re saying I was mistaken with this assumption in the OP? > [@](#): > > The way I see it, if my tree falls on my neighbors car, I’m responsible. It really doesn’t matter what intent I did or didn’t have, or whether I was negligent in caring for the tree; it was my tree, and therefore is my responsiblity. Also, again not to be insulting, but what’s your source of authority here? Are you a lawyer? A studier of things legal? A past litigant? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legal-responsibility-of-city-in-maintenance/212050/16 "2003-11-10T18:03:09Z")
There’s no strict liability with your tree. I’m a retired lawyer. If your tree falls on your neighbor’s car, and the tree was on your property without encroachment, and you were not negligent you are not liable. Since, however, it is your tree and you have only one or a few and you see it or them every day, your knowledge of any defect in the tree would be far superior to the city’s knowledge of defects in thousands of trees.