New Search
HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> To: KOFFORD Carolyn <br /> Cc: HAMMITT Bob; PLAMONDON Scott F <br /> Subject: RE: Urban Forestry <br /> Date: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 7:33AM <br /> Hi Carolyn, <br /> This is a question which may best be answered by an attorney. This is due to the fact that our liability is <br /> ultimately determined by a court on a case by case basis. To better understand this concept I believe the <br /> question being asked could be rephrased to: <br /> In a property damage or injury lawsuit, what would our defense be if we had no program for elimination of <br /> hazard trees. <br /> I'll do my best to answer. <br /> We have far more trees in our natural and developed park lands which need attention than we have <br /> resources. I would not be surprised if this was by a factor of 50:1. That being said, our planned defense <br /> in the past if there was to be a lawsuit caused by the failure of a City Tree was to state that we had <br /> limited funds and were addressing the issue on a priority basis and going as far as the appropriated funds <br /> could carry us each year. They key being we did HAVE a program (even if minimally funded) and were not <br /> ignoring the responsibility or problem. I believe this defense would fit somewhere in the discretionary <br /> immunity rights of the city. <br /> If we intentionally cut the total program and said we were no longer going to address hazard trees, I <br /> suspect that would severely weaken that defense strategy. How much, I'm not qualified to estimate. <br /> Thanks <br /> Johnny <br /> From: KOFFORD Carolyn <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Cc: HAMMITT Bob <br /> Subject: Urban Forestry <br /> Date: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 7:02AM <br /> Johnny, can you answer the following question raised by City <br /> Council about BM47 reduction strategies: <br /> Does the City incur additional liability by eliminating hazardous tree removal? <br /> Thanks for your assistance. Carolyn <br /> Page 1 <br />