Union Pacific Railroad v. Superior Court (Abrams) (2024)
Plaintiffs died after their respective vehicles collided, veered off the highway, and struck a nearby tree located on land owned by the defendant. Relatives of the decedents sued for negligence, alleging the defendant failed “to remove the tree or take other measures to protect the public against the dangerous condition caused by the tree.” The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
The Court of Appeal granted the writ petition and held the defendant was under no duty to remove the tree or to take other measures to protect the driving public from any dangerous condition posed by the tree. The court found no evidence that the defendant was ever notified of an issue pertaining to the tree or that the presence of the tree “increased the chances [for] a collision.” Moreover, the court found that the defendant “did not create the alleged hazard, . . . had no greater knowledge of the risk posed by the tree than the passing motorists, [and] committed no infraction, public offense or heinous act.” The court instead concluded that the California Department of Transportation, the agency responsible for highway design and maintenance, owes a duty, “when on notice, to ‘take . . . protective and remedial measures . . . for the safety’ of the motoring public.”
