Tree Owners Liability
On May 11, 2003, plaintiff Maria Ortiz was hit and injured by a falling tree limb. The tree was on defendant’s Chicago property and the limb extended over a brick wall and a public walkway. The defendant did not hire professionals to inspect or maintain the tree but did its own maintenance by trimming low hanging branches. The plaintiff, her husband, and their two children were riding their bicycles on a very windy day. While stopped waiting for her husband and son to catch up with them, a large limb fell from the tree striking the plaintiff.
The case went to trial and the jury returned with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the court entered judgment and awarded plaintiff $686,831.17. The defendant filed a motion seeking a judgment not withstanding the verdict or a new trial. It was denied. Defendant appealed contending the court denied its post trial motions and request for a new trial.
The defendant argued that it owed a general duty “only to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from a defective or unsound tree.” It also argued that it had neither actual or constructive notice. The appeals court noted that the possessor of land is not liable for physical harm caused to others outside the land by a natural condition of the land. However there is an exception that applies to a possessor of land in an urban area where the possessor is “subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway.”
The appeals court pointed to the record which showed that the defendant failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm from the large overhanging limb to travelers on the sidewalk and as such the appeals court affirmed the verdict.
