184 A.2d 741 | D.C. | 1962
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted at pretrial to the defendant municipality upon a complaint filed by appellant, a pedestrian for damages resulting from a fall while crossing a grass plot between the street curbing and sidewalk.
The complaint charges that the District violated its duty to maintain this area in a reasonably safe condition for pedestrian safety “in that the roots of the tree located in the grass plot * * * were allowed to become dangerously exposed so that said roots were unlevel, broken, irregular and abruptly elevated from the surrounding grass plot,” and that as a result appellant was caused to fall. Certain photographs were admitted into the record with a stipulation that they fairly reflected the character of the tree space, “to-wit, one or more large gnarled roots growing in tortuous fashion across the surface of the land.”
Summary judgment was granted on the ground that “the District is entitled to immunity from liability as a. matter of law” in these circumstances. We are not in accord with this reasoning, but we find summary judgment was properly granted, although we sustain this action on different grounds.
As part of a general plan in effect over many years in the District of Columbia for the propagation of ornamental and shade trees throughout the city, space has been left between the traffic curbing and pedestrian sidewalk for the planting and growth of trees. To cultivate, preserve and replace trees in this .allotted space as part of the beautification of the nation’s capital and for the enjoyment and comfort of its residents and its innumerable visitors is within the powers of the District. This space is not a part of the sidewalk, nor. is it intended to be used as such. However, this does not obviate the responsibility of the District to exercise reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of the area so that it will not be a menace to pedestrian safety. The District is liable for injuries caused by construction defects or improper maintenance of such spaces.
In the cases we have examined the injured parties have based their claims for damages upon dangerous conditions in grass plots due to holes,
We find no error by the Court in considering the admitted facts at pretrial and in granting summary judgment when it was clear there was no genuine issue of fact to support liability.
Affirmed.
. Paton v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 180 A.2d 844; Jones v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 123 A.2d 364.
. Finney v. District of Columbia, 47 App.D.C. 48, 51.
. District of Columbia v. White, 48 App.D.C. 44; District of Columbia v. Donaldson, 38 App.D.C. 259.
. Dinney v. District of Columbia, supra, note 2.
. District of Columbia v. Duryee, 29 App.D.C. 327.