 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holts v. City of Omaha8/6/2002
act been marked for removal as a hazard tree, but it was not removed. Either factual scenario would support the verdict.
We need not discuss whether the district court erred in finding Omaha's inspection system "problematic." The green ash, viewing the evidence most favorably to Vanessa, had several visible external indicators of decay which, under the driveby inspection method, should have prompted a closer inspection. If the City had properly inspected the green ash under the City's own inspection system, it would surely have identified the green ash as a hazard. The court did not clearly err in finding that the City "should have known the danger the [green ash] created." And, based on substantial evidence of the green ash's decay and evidence it had been marked for removal, we cannot say that the court clearly erred in finding that the City was negligent in failing to timely remove the green ash.
CONCLUSION
As Vanessa notes in her brief, with the exception of errors assigned to purported erroneous admissions of evidence, the City seeks simply to attack the trial court's factual determinations. In essence, the City requests in various different ways that we reweigh the evidence and judge the witnesses' credibility. Well-settled law cited herein prevents us from doing so. There is ample evidence that Alois was killed by a falling tree which the City knew, or should have known, was a hazard tree threatening the lives and safety of Omaha citizens. The City failed to act reasonably upon its knowledge or upon what it could readily have learned. Accordingly, we affirm the verdict against the City.
Affirmed.
|