Does anyone have any experience regarding who is responsible for the
replacement of city sidewalks that have heaved
due to trees on private property. City says it is the homeowners
resposibility. Homeowner says it's the city's.
By the way this is in Northern California.
Anyone know of any case law regarding these issues ?
Thanks !!

Reply to post by CJ, on April 02, 2000 at 22:15:52:

It may be a local custom issue. In New York City, the policy is that the sidewalk repair is the homeowners responsibility, even if the tree is a street tree, however, you need to procure a city permit for the sidewalk work and make an appointment to have Forestry address the roots that did the initial damage.

Wayne

Reply to post by Wayne, on April 02, 2000 at 22:15:52:

The city replaces the heaved slabs and asseses the home owner's property for around $275/square no mater the cause. We just had some done due to normal subsidance, the joints were past the tolerance for thier standards and the did three or four of them along our frontage.

Reply to post by CJ, on April 02, 2000 at 22:15:52:

I have numerous case citations on heaving sidewalks, and some in California that will be in my new book. The bottom line, as in many law cases....it depends! There are even cases in the same state that do differ in the courts' opinions.
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by CJ, on April 02, 2000 at 22:15:52:

Very often specifics. One could argue that the homeowner's property i.e. "the tree" has trespassed and caused damage, however, the municipal/authority may have a duty of care to monitor the potential for such an occurence. The "trip and slip" (pedestrian claims) issues of root disruption of hard surfaces are on-going in the UK.

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul Hawksford, on April 02, 2000 at 22:15:52:

Hi Paul,

All this happens without the Engineer who designed the footpath taking any responsability for
designing a path that could not withstand root growth (an expected force).

If the enhgineer designs a building in Ca and it cannot take an earth quake there would be
trouble. Why do we let them of the hook here?

Mark

Reply to post by mark hartley, on April 24, 2000 at 05:13:25:

It's rare and cases tend to relate to the only people potentially culpable at the present time (tree owner and/or municipal). Although your question begs another - are we as Arborists to be held responsible when recommending in our reports, engineering design for hard surface or underground service installation that causes harm - I think so?

Cheers

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on April 24, 2000 at 15:56:25:

Paul,

I miss this! Is that irreversable harm or is that any kind of harm. I think that
it would be the first of the two and in that case I agree with you.

Mark