Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin (AGC) is extremely pleased to announce that the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the City of Chico on an important legal argument presented by Senior Partner Sharon Medellin regarding the scope of the natural condition immunity set forth in Government Code section 831.2. The issue was raised by way of a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate after the trial court's denial of the City's motion for summary judgment.

This lawsuit was filed by an individual injured by a falling tree branch while jogging on a City owned bike path. The individual sued the City for the alleged existence of a dangerous condition of public property. Our office filed a motion for summary judgment based, in part, on Government Code section 831.2, which provides immunity to public entities for injuries caused by natural conditions of unimproved public property. Plaintiff's lawyers submitted evidence that pruning a tree can push growth into the remaining branches, thereby increasing their size. While there was some evidence indicating that the tree may have been pruned in the past, the plaintiff's attorney did not submit evidence that there was a causal nexus between prior pruning the branch failure. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact on whether the injuries were caused by a natural condition of unimproved public property.

Sharon Medellin of Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal arguing that the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment by failing to recognize the natural condition immunity as applied to the undisputed facts of the case. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, issued a writ of mandate overturning the trial court's decision, directing the court to vacate its order denying the motion for summary judgment. The Court determined that the natural growth of indigenous trees in natural habitats is a natural condition and that pruning that may have occurred some 18 years earlier did not alter that fact absent evidence that such pruning caused the branch to drop. The Court of Appeal further determined that the immunity was not lost because the tree grew between two manmade pathways because the area where the tree grew, as opposed to where the injury occurred, was unimproved. Plaintiffs' filed a Petition for Review and request to de-publish the Court of Appeal decision with the California Supreme Court, which were both denied.

The Court of Appeal ruling results in the dismissal of the case without the need for costly litigation and potential damages. The Court of Appeal ruling is a significant victory for all California cities.

Sharon Medellin is a Senior Partner in AGC's litigation practice group and specializes in the defense of personal injury and civil rights claims on behalf of the firm's municipal clients. For additional information on this case or other litigation matters, Ms. Medellin can be reached at (562) 699-5500 or smedellin@agclawfirm.com.