City Tree Fell on My Car, City won't pay, is city at fault?

[michaerlscai]

My car was parked on the side of the street a few months ago. A tree belong to the city of monterey park, california has a big branch broke and fell on my car. caused dents and scratches. I have filed claim with the city, the city responded in a letter they declined my claim and suggested I can go to court if I don't agree.

This happened on a windless day, so my thought is city is at fault for not maintaining the tree which cause a giant branch to broke off and fall on my car. The cost of the damage is about $2,000+. I didn't have comprehensive insurance on my car, so unless city pays me I'm out of luck.

Do I have a case so I can sue the city in court or should I just forget about this?

 

[TheGeekess]

My car was parked on the side of the street a few months ago. A tree belong to the city of monterey park, california has a big branch broke and fell on my car. caused dents and scratches. I have filed claim with the city, the city responded in a letter they declined my claim and suggested I can go to court if I don't agree.

This happened on a windless day, so my thought is city is at fault for not maintaining the tree which cause a giant branch to broke off and fall on my car. The cost of the damage is about $2,000+. I didn't have comprehensive insurance on my car, so unless city pays me I'm out of luck.

Do I have a case so I can sue the city in court or should I just forget about this?

How is the City responsible for an act of God?

 

[ecmst12]

How do you intend to prove not only that the tree was a hazard, but that the city KNEW of the hazard for a reasonable amount of time (usually 30 days) and failed to remedy it?

 

[sandyclaus]

My car was parked on the side of the street a few months ago. A tree belong to the city of monterey park, california has a big branch broke and fell on my car. caused dents and scratches. I have filed claim with the city, the city responded in a letter they declined my claim and suggested I can go to court if I don't agree.

This happened on a windless day, so my thought is city is at fault for not maintaining the tree which cause a giant branch to broke off and fall on my car. The cost of the damage is about $2,000+. I didn't have comprehensive insurance on my car, so unless city pays me I'm out of luck.

Do I have a case so I can sue the city in court or should I just forget about this?

Just because a branch fell on your car doesn't mean that the city is liable for it. And just because you *THINK* that the city didn't maintain the tree, thereby causing the branch to fall doesn't make it so.

It may well be that the city has a policy of denying reimbursement unless faced with a lawsuit, which makes sense due to the fact that it would deter many a nuisance claim from people just demanding money for no reason at all. However, unless you can PROVE that the city is at fault, then they can claim the incident as an "act of God", for which they wouldn't be obligated to pay.

I suggest that you file a claim with your own auto insurance provider to seek repair/reimbursement instead, unless you're prepared to foot the bill for a lawsuit that you may not win.

 

[Zigner]

I suggest that you file a claim with your own auto insurance provider to seek repair/reimbursement instead, unless you're prepared to foot the bill for a lawsuit that you may not win.

The OP doesn't have comprehensive coverage, so this is not an option.

 

[michaerlscai]

when i did a search online a while ago, I did see some cities do pay out when their tree fell on people's car. I just need to find where I found those.. it will seem somewhat unfair if city can just let their trees rot and fall on people's cars because no one can really prove it's city's fault.

 

[ecmst12]

It's only the city's fault if they were informed of the hazard more than 30 days before the branch fell and did nothing about it. They are not expected to be omniscient.

 

[sandyclaus]

when i did a search online a while ago, I did see some cities do pay out when their tree fell on people's car. I just need to find where I found those.. it will seem somewhat unfair if city can just let their trees rot and fall on people's cars because no one can really prove it's city's fault.

It is patently unfair to the city to have to pay out for a claim that something that you haven't yet proven is their fault.

You say that they "let their trees rot", but have not been able to provide any proof of their negligence or liability. If the tree really has rotted, then the remaining trunk and branches should show signs of the tree's poor condition. Hire a professional to verify it.

The city isn't going to pay out if you won't exercise your due diligence to give them a reason to do so.

 

[Antigone*]

The OP doesn't have comprehensive coverage, so this is not an option.

Three letters come to mind S-O-L (and I dont' mean statute of limitations)

 

[sandyclaus]

LOL... or in the illustrious words of Forrest Gump, "IT happens".

 

[Zigner]

If the tree really has rotted, then the remaining trunk and branches should show signs of the tree's poor condition. Hire a professional to verify it.

(For the OP) - understand that the cost of the report from the arborist is not recoverable from the city.

 

[ecmst12]

And it still won't win the case unless you can prove that it had been reported to the city BEFORE the accident happened.

 

[Zigner]

And it still won't win the case unless you can prove that it had been reported to the city BEFORE the accident happened.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. The city should have a program of tree maintenance. If a professional can testify that the tree was in an advanced state of decay, and had been in such a state for a long period of time, the OP may have a chance. Of course, I don't think that's going to happen here.

 

[michaerlscai]

so I guess now I have to prove the tree is dead or sick - they have removed the fallen branch.

it's extremely hard to prove something, that doesn't mean city is not at fault if tree was sick or dead to start with.

 

[Zigner]

so I guess now I have to prove the tree is dead or sick - they have removed the fallen branch.

it's extremely hard to prove something, that doesn't mean city is not at fault if tree was sick or dead to start with.

Not only do you have to prove the tree is dead, or has been "sick" for an extended period of time, but you have to show that the condition of the tree was the cause of the tree branch falling.


I suspect it will be cheaper to fix the car than to take this to court.



ETA: Of course, we're talking about small claims court. It costs very little to file.