Comments on: September 15 roundup https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/september-15-roundup-4/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:16:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: DensityDuck https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/september-15-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-238134 Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:16:24 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39987#comment-238134 Actually, given that the trees were probably mandated by zoning laws, it makes sense that the municipality should be responsible for maintaining them (and for paying damages resulting from them.)

]]> By: Richard Nieporent https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/september-15-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-238031 Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:57:07 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39987#comment-238031 Since the city has no way of guaranteeing that a branch will not fall down in a storm, the only sure way of preventing this from happening again is for the city to cut down all of the trees.

]]> By: John Burgess https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/09/september-15-roundup-4/comment-page-1/#comment-238005 Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:04:41 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39987#comment-238005 I think even the greenest of new lawyers realizes that a tree doesn’t have deep pockets (roots, maybe, but not pockets). Therefore, you sue the deepest pockets within reach. Here, that’s the city, which knew or should have known that branches fall from trees during storms.

Never mind that those passing under trees during storms should also know this fact of life.

]]>