This month I have a collection of short subjects,
under the general theme of legal responsibility
for conditions existing on property (which
you may have noticed is one of my favorite
topics.)
The "save the drunks from themselves"
claim: A drunk driver drives his car onto
a pier. The car crashes through a railing
and falls into the ocean. The driver's family
sues the pier operator for failing to put
up railings that would stop a car. The court
rules that the family cannot recover damages
since the pier operator is protected by a
statute that says operators of recreational
facilities are responsible for injuries only
if the operator acts willfully or is grossly
negligent. The real estate law question: to
what extent must a landowner go to prevent
a condition on the property from causing injury?
The "you can't build it without permission"
claim: A family builds a tree house in their
front yard. The tree house becomes more and
more elaborate as the family continues to
add to it. Eventually a neighbor complains
to the city building inspector that the family
has built a building that violates the zoning
code and lacks a building permit. The building
inspector takes legal action against the family
to force them to remove the tree house. The
real estate law question: when is something
a "building" that is governed by
zoning and building codes?
And now the item I know you have all been
waiting for: the "you didn't trim the
bushes" claim, or, the shrub police strike
again, but in reverse! No, not in Santa Cruz,
but in Palo Alto, California, about 42 miles
north of Santa Cruz. This time, the shrub
police wanted to eradicate, not preserve,
the shrubs. At least there was ostensibly
a public safety motive behind the police action.
A homeowner planted a row of shrubs along
the curb at the side of her corner lot. After
several years the shrubs (a species native
to California, by the way) became rather tall.
The city sent the homeowner a "Notification
of Violation" based on an anonymous complaint.
The city has an ordinance specifying that
plants at the curb be no more than two feet
tall.
The homeowner trimmed the shrubs. The trimming
didn't satisfy the city, which then began
an enforcement action. Somehow what started
as an administrative enforcement action (meaning
that they can't send you to jail, just tell
you to trim the shrubs and pay a nominal fine)
turned into an apparent criminal enforcement
action (meaning you can go to jail and/or
pay a large fine). The matter was ultimately
settled by the homeowner (1) mowing down the
shrubs to just above ground level, and (2)
making a donation to a tree-planting organization.
In Santa Cruz, the homeowner would have been
in trouble for pruning the shrubs without
permission, since they are native shrubs.
Just when did we decide that we needed law
enforcement for such things?
What do these situations have in common?
You have to wonder whose idea it was to take
legal action. Why did someone think that in
these situations, there was a legal remedy
to pursue?
