Custom Search
|
|
Are People Injured By Falling Trees And Power Lines Entitled To Damages?
Power Poles According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, nearly one-third of power poles that toppled during a Southern California windstorm were overloaded. This was revealed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as part of an investigation into the collapse, which had resulted in $40 million in estimated damages. The president of the utility company, Southern California Edison, has indicated that the company is conducting its own investigation and that it is cooperating with the Commission. The situation could be considered a threat to public safety since falling poles could cause personal injury to residents, explains a lawyer. Unfortunately, even more disturbing than the news that 60 of the 211 toppled poles were overloaded comes the announcement from a CPUC representative that the overloading is likely an issue throughout all of Southern California and likely through much of the Northern part of the state. The overloaded poles are in violation of a state law regulating the ratio between the amount of equipment carried by each pole and they create a significant fire hazard, among other problems. While the numbers of overloaded poles are preliminary, The Pasadena Star-News reports that penalties and fines could be levied against the utility company by the CPUC or that the state could mandate remedial action. Problem Trees Overloaded power poles are not the only hazard faced by residents of Southern California. According to the Los Angeles Times, a large portion of the trees along Irvine Avenue in Costa Mesa are infested with beetles and termites. This issue came to the forefront in September 2011 when a tree fell and caused the death of a motorist. Despite public requests from major news organizations to view the report on the cause of this death, the documents were not released as the city attorney indicated they were protected by attorney-client privilege. Other public records, however, showed that West Coat Arborists had indicated prior to the accident that the trees were infested but that none were in a state that necessitated immediate removal. Records released by West Coast Arborists, which has been maintaining city trees since at least 1993, also revealed that the tree had last been pruned in April. The City's Responsibilities Overloaded power poles and falling trees on public property are issues that could potentially create legal problems for government entities responsible for maintaining the areas where the personal injury occurred. These legal problems may arise due to a longstanding rule that an individual who is injured through the negligence of another may file a civil lawsuit to obtain compensation. However, things become complicated in situations when the injury occurs on public property and when the defendant is a government entity. Government entities and employees are largely protected from liability through governmental immunity statutes such as the one found in California Government Code section 815, explains a lawyer. This code section stipulates that public entities are not liable for personal injury arising from their acts or omissions or from the acts/omissions of employees unless a statutory exception exists allowing for liability. This means, therefore, that for the government to be considered liable for either the falling trees or the overloaded power poles, a statutory exception would need to exist allowing an injured victim to file suit. In the instance of both the power lines and the tree case, such an exception might exist in Government Code §835. This code section addresses injuries that occur as a result of dangerous conditions on public property. To make a case and impose liability for such conditions, §835 establishes several elements that a plaintiff must prove. These include: that a public entity owned or controlled the property; that a dangerous condition existed on the property; that the dangerous condition was the proximate or actual cause of the injury; that the dangerous condition made the specific injury reasonably foreseeable; and that a public employee acting within the scope of employment caused the condition or that the public entity had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition and time to correct it prior to the injury occurring. Proving government ownership of the streets is simple and straightforward, as Rink v. City of Cupertino held that a plaintiff can prove ownership by showing that the city/county accepted the streets through a formal public resolution. The standard for determining whether a condition is dangerous is set in California Government Code §830(a), which establishes that a condition is dangerous when it creates a substantial risk of injury when the property or adjacent property is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner with due care. Foreseeability, another required element, is determined by assessing whether it is likely that a person would be exposed to the hazard. Finally, a plaintiff can satisfy the last element required to impose liability either by proving that an employee created the dangerous condition or by simply demonstrating that the dangerous condition was reported. An assessment of both the tree and power line situations, therefore, indicates that it is possible that the government will be held accountable for injuries arising either from falling trees or overloaded power lines. Since it is reasonably foreseeable that overloaded power lines or a falling tree would cause injury and that people would be exposed to harm from either, and since both of these are dangerous conditions that existed on government property, a plaintiff taking action against the government based on injury resulting from power lines or infected trees could likely prove the first several elements of the case easily. Proving the last element related to government knowledge of the defect or employee negligence would also be straightforward in the tree case, as the plaintiff could show that West Coast Arborist had made a report about the tree infestation and that the government should thus have been aware of the potential for a tree to fall. In the power line case, however, a plaintiff who suffered injury would need to show that the government was aware of the overloaded power lines. Now that CPUC has undertaken an investigation and is aware of the extent of the problem, a plaintiff who suffers an injury in the future would likely have the evidence necessary to make a case in this situation as well. Clearly, therefore, if actions are not taken to protect Southern California residents from the potential harm they face from dangerous public spaces, any injured residents may have a viable claim against the public entities responsible for those spaces. Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com Larry Drexel is a Public Relations manager. To obtain free, informative books or articles he suggests visiting California personal injury lawyer. |
|