Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 158
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This court opinion provides a very interesting summary of what liability a department of transportation has (at least in Pennsylvania) when a motorist is injured by a falling (not fallen) tree or tree branch.
Snyder v. Harmon (1989): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a deep mining pit. After getting into a crash on the highway, four motorists walk off of the highway, fall into the pit, and suffer severe injuries. Is the DOT liable for failing to install lighting, barriers, or guide rail in front of the pit? No, because the pit was not on DOT property, which is required by the state law that waives the default sovereign immunity in certain situations.
Patton v. PennDOT (1996): Adjacent to a state highway, inside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch falls from the tree and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for failing to trim the branch? Yes, because the tree was on DOT property.
Marker v. PennDOT (1996): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a steep upward slope. A tree growing in the slope uproots itself, falls off of the slope, and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for building a highway underneath a steep slope? No, because neither the tree nor the slope was on DOT property.
Clark v. PennDOT (2008): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch of the tree overhangs the road. The tree—not just the branch, but the entire tree—falls onto the road, and a motorist is severely injured by the trunk. Is the DOT liable for failing to cut down the tree, especially when (1) the DOT's maintenance manual says that trees like this should be investigated and (2) the DOT was specifically informed of the branch by a concerned local before the injury? No, because the tree was not on DOT property. The existence of an overhanging branch is not relevant to this determination, since the motorist was injured by the trunk, not by the branch.
Schmidt v. PennDOT (2024—the PDF linked above): Adjacent to a state highway, outside the DOT's right of way, there is a tree. A branch of the tree overhangs the road. The branch falls and kills a motorist. Is the DOT liable for failing to trim the branch? No, because the tree was not on DOT property. Under longstanding principles of property law, if a branch overhangs DOT property, then the DOT does gain the right to trim the branch, but does not gain actual ownership of the branch, so the injury was not caused by a dangerous condition of DOT property.
More options
Context Copy link