Legal Opinion

Rosengren v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 13, 2009No. 60804-5-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 Trees planted by a property owner are an artificial rather than a natural condition of the land. A property owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care that no part of any trees planted by the owner poses an unreasonable risk of harm to the pedestrian using the abutting sidewalk. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Appelwick, J.

*568FACTS

¶2 The facts are undisputed. In 1953, James and Annabel Hughes bought the property located at 4821 37th Avenue SW, Seattle, Washington. At some point prior to 1990, the Hugheses planted three birch trees on their property, adjacent to the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Hertog v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1999

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bessie Williams v. First TransitCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  2. Hannelore W. Mallett v. Adelphi, Llc, Et Ano.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  3. Jermaine Doss, App. v. City Of Seattle, Resp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API