Mercury Casualty Company v. City of Pasadena
B266959
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- In 2011 a storm with hurricane‑force gusts uprooted over 2,000 city‑owned trees in Pasadena; a Canary Island pine (Tree F‑2) in a city parkway fell and severely damaged the Dusseaults’ home.
- Mercury Casualty, as subrogee for the Dusseaults, sued the City for inverse condemnation; bench trial resulted in a judgment for Mercury ($800,000) and a costs award under CCP §1036.
- The City owns an urban forest and adopted tree policies (Official Street Tree List, Master Street Tree Plan, and a 1992 Tree Protection Ordinance) but there was no record who planted Tree F‑2 (planted in the late 1940s/early 1950s).
- The City inspected/pruned the trees near the property in 1993 and 2007, removed one dead tree in 2008, and used a five‑year inspection/maintenance cycle implemented in 2005 or 2010.
- The trial court found the tree was a ‘‘work of public improvement’’ maintained for a public purpose and thus held the City strictly liable in inverse condemnation; the Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a city‑owned tree (Tree F‑2) is a "work of public improvement" for inverse condemnation | The City’s ownership, ordinance, and urban‑forest policies make the tree a public improvement, so the City should be strictly liable | A tree is a public improvement only if it was deliberately planted as part of a planned public project or design; no evidence City planted or designed Tree F‑2 | Tree F‑2 was not a work of public improvement because no evidence it was deliberately planted or constructed by the City as part of a public project |
| Whether the City’s tree‑maintenance plan caused inverse condemnation liability | Mercury: adopting urban‑forest policies and maintaining trees converts ownership to a public improvement and creates liability | The City’s five‑year inspection/maintenance cycle met or exceeded industry standards; no deficient policy shown | The maintenance plan was not deficient and did not establish the deliberate risk‑shifting required for inverse condemnation |
| Whether the Ordinance or Master Street Tree Plan converts existing trees into public improvements | Mercury: the Ordinance and Master Plan reflect a public program that subjects city trees to inverse condemnation | City: those instruments are general policies, adopted decades after the tree was planted, and contain no design/planting mandate for Tree F‑2 | Ordinance and Master Plan do not retroactively convert Tree F‑2 into a public improvement |
| Whether the November 2011 storm was a superseding cause freeing the City from liability | Mercury: inverse condemnation imposes strict liability regardless of storm severity if caused by public improvement | City: extreme storm could be superseding cause and also undermines public‑improvement finding | Court did not reach superseding‑cause argument because it resolved case on public‑improvement ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250 (explains inverse condemnation strict liability for physical injury caused by a public improvement)
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (assumes trees planted as highway beautification can be public improvement; rejects visibility‑based taking)
- City of Pasadena v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 (discusses when a city‑owned tree could be part of a public improvement; trial issue may exist if planting as part of project shown)
- Paterno v. State of California, 74 Cal.App.4th 68 (distinguishes deliberate public project risk from negligent operation; maintenance plan must be deficient to support inverse claim)
- Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App.4th 596 (inverse condemnation where municipality’s maintenance policy for public improvements created known risk)
- McMahan’s of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica, 146 Cal.App.3d 683 (city held liable where maintenance/replacement policy for pipes was inadequate)
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (explains inverse condemnation policy that costs of public improvements should be spread among beneficiaries)