If A Tree Falls On A House And No One Is Around To Prune It, Does It Make A Lawsuit? 

During a windstorm, a tree owned by a City fell on a residence. As a result of the damage caused to the house, the homeowner’s insurer paid benefits for the damage under the homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurer then sued the City for inverse condemnation and nuisance based on the damages caused by the tree. [¶] The City now seeks a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order denying summary adjudication with respect to these causes of action. The City argues that summary adjudication should have been granted because (1) the subject tree was not a work of public improvement such that the City may be held liable for inverse condemnation, and (2) the insurer failed to submit any evidence that the City was negligent such that the City may be held liable for nuisance. In affirming, the appellate court stated: “Since there was evidence demonstrating that the City’s forestry program, of which the subject tree is a part, is the result of (1) a deliberate governmental action (2) serving a public purpose, summary adjudication of the inverse condemnation cause of action was properly denied.” and “That the City pruned the tree in 2005 and 2010 may potentially show that the City fulfilled its duty of care, however, to reach this conclusion, the City must first present some evidence establishing the nature and extent of its duty of care. As the City failed to do so, it did not meet its burden of showing it had fulfilled its duty of care with respect to [the] property. Accordingly, the burden never shifted to the insurer to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had been negligent in its maintenance of the tree.” (City of Pasadena v. Sup. Ct. (Mercury Casualty Company) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; August 14, 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228, [176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422].)