Facts: A vehicle leaves a road and hits a tree on property bordering the road resulting in injury to a motorist. The motorist makes a demand on the property owner for losses due to the injury, which the property owner denies.
Claim: The motorist claims the property owner had a duty of care to protect members of the public using the adjacent roadway by removing the tree since hitting the tree on leaving the roadway was foreseeable.
Counterclaim: The owner claims they have no duty of care to remove the tree since clearing all roadside hazards from adjacent properties to protect the public from dangerous conditions located on the properties is contrary to public policy.
Holding: A California appeals court holds an owner of property adjacent to a roadway has no duty of care to protect members of the public who use the roadway by removing known dangerous conditions on the property since requiring property owners to protect the driving public from hazards on property adjacent to a roadway is contrary to public policy even though the accident was foreseeable. [Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Superior Court (Adams) (2024) 105 CA3rd 258]
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Superior Court (Abrams)
Related Reading
Legal Aspects of Real Estate Chapter 11 Trespass: a violation of possession
Property Management Chapter 41 Dangerous on-site and off-site activities
