City of Pasadena v. Superior Court
228 Cal. App. 4th 1228
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In a November 30, 2011 windstorm, a City of Pasadena–owned street tree fell and severely damaged James O’Halloran’s residence; Mercury Casualty (the insurer) paid $293,000 to O’Halloran and sued the City.
- Mercury sued the City for inverse condemnation and private nuisance (alleging the City owned the tree and failed to prevent its collapse).
- The City moved for summary adjudication arguing (1) a tree is not a public improvement for inverse condemnation and (2) Mercury produced no evidence of City negligence for nuisance; City relied on its arborist declaration describing a 60,000–tree urban forestry program and evidence of pruning in 2005 and 2010.
- The trial court denied summary adjudication: it found triable issues whether the tree was part of a public improvement and that nuisance liability can exist without negligence (though complaint alleged failure to abate).
- The City petitioned for writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal denied the petition, concluding the City failed to show no triable issues of material fact as to both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mercury) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipally owned street tree is part of a "public improvement" for inverse condemnation | The tree was part of the City’s urban forestry program and thus a public improvement supporting inverse condemnation | Trees are not deliberately designed/constructed public improvements; therefore inverse condemnation does not apply | Court: Denied summary adjudication — triable fact whether the tree, as part of the City’s deliberate urban forestry program serving public purposes, constituted a public improvement |
| Whether nuisance claim requires negligence when premised on failure to abate | Mercury alleged the City failed to prevent/stop the collapse, asserting negligence in maintenance | City argued Mercury presented no evidence of negligent maintenance (pruned in 2005 and 2010) and so no nuisance | Court: Denied summary adjudication — because Mercury’s complaint premised nuisance on failure to abate, negligence is required but City failed to meet its initial burden to show Mercury could not prove negligence (no evidence of the scope of the City’s duty) |
Key Cases Cited
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (planting/maintaining street trees can serve public purposes and be part of a public improvement)
- Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, 10 Cal.4th 368 (inverse condemnation covers special/direct damage from construction or operation of public improvements)
- Moerman v. State of California, 17 Cal.App.4th 452 (no inverse condemnation where state lacked control over the instrumentality causing damage)
- Wildensten v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 231 Cal.App.3d 976 (mere government ownership of raw land is not substantial participation in a public improvement)
- Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250 (test for proximate causation in inverse condemnation tied to improvement as deliberately designed and constructed)
- Holtz v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 296 (inverse condemnation claim based on construction-connected excavation)
- Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water Dist., 206 Cal.App.3d 92 (nuisance may impose liability without negligence, but failure-to-abate claims implicate negligence)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (standard of review and burdens on summary judgment/adjudication)
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (liberal construction of evidence for party opposing summary judgment)
- Burch v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (summary adjudication standard)
- United Community Church v. Garcin, 231 Cal.App.3d 327 (separate statement requirement for summary judgment/adjudication)
- Regents of University of California v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.4th 755 (negligence requires proof of breach of duty and causation)