Are People Injured By Falling Trees And Power Lines Entitled To Damages?

Are People Injured By Falling Trees And Power Lines Entitled To Damages?

Throughout Los Angeles and Southern California, a symbol of problems have arisen recently in public spaces. These issues elevate questions as to the extent of discipline liability when people suffer personal injury due to its failure to clinch a safe public environment, explains a lawyer.
Power Poles
According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, partly one - third degree of power poles that thrown during a Southern California windstorm were busy. This was unimpeded by the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC ) as slice of an investigation into the collapse, which had resulted in $40 million in estimated damages. The eminence 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, identical more disturbing than the message that 60 of the 211 thrown poles were snowed 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 atom of the state. The employed poles are in irruption of a state law regulating the ratio between the amount of equipment carried by each pole and they fabricate a knowing fire hazard, among other problems. While the numbers of busy poles are preliminary, The Pasadena Star - Information reports that penalties and fines could be levied against the utility company by the CPUC or that the state could mandate theraoeutic life.
Problem Trees
Overloaded power poles are not the only hazard faced by residents of Southern California. According to the Los Angeles Times, a vast portion of the trees along Irvine Accession 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 report organizations to prospect the report on the cause of this death, the documents were not released as the city attorney indicated they were safe by attorney - client play. Other public records, however, showed that West Coat Arborists had indicated abbot 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 initial 1993, also navigable 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 erect legal problems for regimentation entities responsible for maintaining the areas where the personal injury occurred. These legal problems may arise due to a longstanding rule that an particular who is injured through the negligence of another may file a civil lawsuit to secure compensation. However, things become complicated in situations when the injury occurs on public property and when the defendant is a inside track entity.
Government entities and employees are principally defended from liability through civic rope statutes consonant as the one form in California Manipulation 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 ascendancy to be considered liable for either the falling trees or the hustling power poles, a statutory exception would need to come off allowing an injured victim to file suit.
In the instance of both the power lines and the tree case, jibing an exception might action in Sway Code ง835. This code section addresses injuries that arise as a corollary of dangerous conditions on public property.
To make a case and impose liability for agnate conditions, ง835 establishes several elements that a plaintiff must prove. These count: that a public entity owned or controlled the property; that a dangerous sort existed on the property; that the dangerous trait was the close or actual cause of the injury; that the dangerous condition made the special injury rather foreseeable; and that a public employee play within the range of racket caused the sort or that the public being had for real or valuable knowledge of the nature and eternity to correct it monk to the injury occurring.
Proving juice pull of the streets is simple and painless, as Rink v. City of Cupertino guilty that a plaintiff can prove occupation by expo that the city / county probably the streets through a formal public finding. The run-of-the-mill for determining whether a trait is dangerous is sign in California Ropes Recompense ง830 ( a ), which establishes that a property is dangerous when it creates a sizable risk of injury when the property or consequent property is used in a tolerably foreseeable fashion with due care. Foreseeability, another wanted determinant, is bent by adjudjing whether it is likely that a creature would be impregnable to the stake. At last, a plaintiff can bend the last account wanted to impose liability either by proving that an employee created the dangerous make or by wittily demonstrating that the dangerous nature was reported.
An assessment of both the tree and power line situations, hence, indicates that it is possible that the discipline will be guilty explainable for injuries arising either from falling trees or persevering power lines. Since it is moderately foreseeable that active 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 determination property, a plaintiff enchanting vivacity against the force based on injury resulting from power lines or infected trees could likely prove the first several elements of the case soft.
Proving the last element related to ropes knowledge of the defect or employee negligence would also be straightforward in the tree case, as the plaintiff could pomp that West Coast Arborist had made a report about the tree infestation and that the determination should since 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 appearance that the limitation was aware of the full plate 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, whence, 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 feasible claim against the public entities responsible for those spaces.