2024 01-09 PC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The following Minnesota court case provides a good example of a city’s duty of care with respect to tree- trimming in intersections: A young passenger in a car was killed when hit by a truck in an uncontrolled, T-shaped intersection in a residential area. Tree branches on private property may have obscured the drivers’ views. The city has a zoning ordinance that requires property owners to keep tree limbs to be at least 8 feet about grade within the public right-of-way. The limbs in question were not within the sight-triangle area. The city trims trees located within the corner sight triangles for traffic visibility. The city also trims trees outside the sight triangles, but usually only if needed to protect the city’s mowing and snow-plowing equipment, if the tree is dead, if the tree interferes with pedestrian or bicycle traffic, or if the tree interferes with a street light. The city does not routinely monitor or trim trees outside sight triangles, but may do so if the need is brought to its attention. Prior to the accident, the city had not received any complaints about the tree. In this case, the city was not liable (i.e., it had immunity).10 The city had adopted a policy about tree trimming: the city did not have resources to trim all of the trees it would have liked; the city gave priority to trimming in sight triangles, instead of trimming outside of sight triangles; and the city considered the desires of private property owners with respect to trimming privately owned trees by the right-of-way. The city’s zoning ordinance left the city room for discretion about how to enforce it. The city exercised its discretion, based on numerous policy considerations and determined that it would not trim trees outside of sight triangles for traffic visibility, unless the tree was brought to its attention as a dangerous condition. Because the city followed its tree-trimming policy, it was immune from liability. What should a municipality do to limit its risk? A municipality should develop a risk-reduction policy, review and update the policy regularly, and follow it. Conduct a tree inventory. Establish priorities for maintenance and monitoring. Inspect public trees on a regular basis and document the inspections. Fix what you find: eliminate hazards. Act ethically. Don’t rely on government immunity as a defense; use your good judgment. Is there a difference between trees in rural areas and trees in urban areas? The distinction between rural trees and urban trees is increasingly blurred as urban areas sprawl out into “rural” and suburban areas and as traffic increases in those areas. In urban areas, property owners have a duty to inspect and will be liable for failing to correct defects or remove an unsound tree. The “rural rule” is that the property owner in rural wooded areas does not have a duty to inspect to make sure that every tree is safe and will not fall over onto a public road. However, if the property owner has actual knowledge that a tree is dangerous, s/he will be held liable if s/he fails to take care of the problem tree. The rationale for this rule is that a rural property owner would have an impractical burden of examining each tree on acres of wooded areas that border roads, compared to the urban property owner’s burden of having to inspect only one or a few trees. The risk of harm is balanced against the property owner’s burden of inspection. Minnesota currently follows the ‘rural rule.”11 However, the appellate courts have not visited this issue since 1921. Courts in other jurisdictions are divided between the rural rule and the urban rule. Disclaimer: The information included in this fact sheet is intended to be educational, not legal advice. If you have a legal problem and require legal advice, you should consult a lawyer. 10 Soltis-McNeal v. Erickson and the City of White Bear Lake, unpublished opinion, No. C3-97-11370 (Minn. App. 1997). 11 Zacharias v. Nesbitt et al. , 150 Minn. 369, 185 N.W. 295 (1921). [Hazard Trees and Limbs on Public Property and Governmental Immunity]