Moral of the story: Cities have to find a way to maintain their trees better, or at least not let one of them fall on the local resident lawyer.

from the link below:

"... one of Burke's lawyers, said he was happy for Burke and his wife. The finding could also benefit other residents and force the city to take a more proactive stance on inspecting trees in its right of way ..."

===>>>
no it wont..

it will lead to the city simply removing the trees .. causing a barren landscape ..

why hire tree workers for life.. theirs or the trees.. when with one application of the chainsaw.. the problem is gone ...

i got sick of the article at this point ... and didn't find out.. what the heck he was doing under the tree after a 4 day storm ...

a similar thing is happening right now in my area ...

storms cause power failures ... sometimes for days .. which isnt fun in the great white north in winter with no heat .. nor toilet ...

so the peeps whine and moan.. and claims it all the power companies fault ... and demand something done ...

so the power Co exercises it 'easement' .. and starts clearing all the trees the idiot people [mostly prior owners mind you] ... planted UNDER THE FREAKIN POWER LINES ...

so what's the result.. slap on the back.. thanks for protecting our power source..

oh no .. diatribe after diatribe about how they are killing/maiming all the trees.. what a travesty .. OMG.. the world is going to end..

to which my reply is.. check your mortgage map .. YOU DONT OWN THAT PROPERTY.. nor have any right to have those trees there.. and you are in denial to whine and moan about it all ...

well that part is in my head.. and what i say aloud is.. well.. as a gardener.. all i see is 'opportunity' .. for something new ... let me know if you need suggestions on what to plant there ... how about a nice line of lilac.. which will block your view ... and never really reach the power lines .. in your lifetime ...

anyway.. the first thing they taught us in law school.. was.. bad facts make bad law ... and the fact that he was out under the tree after a storm.. is a bad fact ... most nearly as bad as the fact of the horrific injuries .. put those together.. and all i see.. is the city removing all the trees ...

ok.. how do you find all these tree articles .. lol ... do you have some search engine alert you?? .. man o'live.. if ever a name was appropo ... you do love your trees .. lol ..

ken

ps: BTW.. do some research on palm roots.. i am pretty sure.. they barely have a root system as we tree peeps would think ... and whole large trees can be moved by cranes due to such [the machine.. not the bird] ... as i recall.. and that is always questionable ... lol ... they fall over rather easily ... but i would defer on this .. just some vague recollection.. as obviously.. we dont do palm in MI ....

Here is a link that might be useful: same as the second link in her post

Ken, yes you DO own that property, even though the utility has easement for the public good. You must maintain that property and you certainly pay taxes on it. My deed descriptions say I own to the center of the flippin' road running the length of our land. I can conceivably be assessed for any work done on that easement. On a property I own in town, I own the sidewalk running through the easement and I must maintain it. I can't tear it out, nor does the city maintain it. It's my land and my nickle, even though I don't have any say over it. These are hybrid situations of public/private duty and responsibilities and the residents should be happy the city bears the cost and maintenance of the palms (when they do what they're supposed to do) and not shift it on to the property owners. I think I'd be ambivalent about it, since they don't have a choice about the tree stuck in front of their home on the hellstrips. I ran a realtor off my land some time ago, who was setting some signage out for his business and figures he'd stick it in the easement. Easements are not public property. The only parties who may come and go on them or make any alterations in them are those stated on your deed. And of course it will vary depending on your locality what conditions are enjoyed.

I believe this man contributed to his situation by not using common sense and putting himself in harm's way. But I also believe the municipality was negligent by failure to maintain. To what degree it was negligent would be impacted by the wording set down when easement was granted. I believe that lawsuits have gone crazy because society has pretty much ignored the part of the law where 'acts of God' and using commonly accepted diligence are concerned. There is an overwhelming 'somebody's gotta pay' mentality. But if I were sitting that jury, I'd be tempted to want to temper the amount of the award to take into account how much the injured party played into his own misfortune. But I do believe if it's how it was presented in the article (and that's not always the case), this man has a legitimate suit.