Woman impaled by tree branch sues medical center

SMAdams

SMAdams

Location
NW Chicago subburbs, Illinois
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/ct-met-impaled-update-20110420,0,3184852.story



A Lake Villa woman impaled by a branch during a violent windstorm last fall has sued the medical center that owns the 65-foot tree.

Helen Miller, 42, had been driving along Grand Avenue in Lindenhurst on Oct. 26 when the tree branch rammed through her windshield and pierced her body, above her stomach and below her lungs. While missing vital organs, the branch caused serious injuries, some permanent, according to a lawsuit filed at the Lake County courthouse.

Miller alleges that Vista Health System Surgery and Treatment Center failed to properly maintain the tree on its property at 1050 Red Oak Lane, near the intersection where the accident occurred, according to the court record.

The tree has been removed, her lawyer said.

A spokesman for Vista Health System declined comment, citing the litigation.

Miller, an art teacher, declined an interview on the advice of her lawyer.

She had plans to use the branch in an artwork, she told reporters last fall.

This week, her husband, Todd, confirmed that she stopped working on the project to preserve the branch, which could be used as evidence.
 
I think the phrase "during a violent windstorm" may be a tough hurdle for her case. Sorry for being cynical, but my skepticism rises with these types of lawsuits.

Just a few questions I would have. How does she KNOW the tree wasn't maintained? Because it was tall? Has she had an RCA give an opinion? Does she have pre-violent-windstorm pictures of this tree?

What was its species, age, hieght, condition? Had it been previously topped? What is the pruning history?

What were the conditions of the surrounding trees? Were they damaged as well, or just this one? What were their pruining histories? Just a few off the top, I'm sure buzzers will have more.

Maybe it's just me...I don't know if there are any arborist/lawyers out there. Here in SoCal we have Randall Stamen who has either represented or sued most of the RCAs around this area :{). The saying is: Hire him first before the other side gets him. He is a professional, though. He will tell you if you don't have a case, and won't represent you just to win one.

Sorry for the de-rail...I hope she heals well. She probably has a lot of medical expenses, so I hope her artwork sells...hmmmmm, wait a minute......
 
I would put money on this one... Nothing else in that medical center looks large enough and or close enough to cause a problem. I'd guess that little grove of trees in near water/low point. In my area, I'd guess Cottonwood or Willow.

Yes, I have a little time on my hands.

277691-BrokenLimb.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 277691-BrokenLimb.webp
    277691-BrokenLimb.webp
    71.4 KB · Views: 31
if their pockets were not so deep, she might not be reaching into them.

dissecting tree parts for forensics is fun. never know how the cases will turn out though.

thanks rbs!
 
This is another BS lawsuit, she'll probably get something and shouldn't. ACT OF NATURE, sorry it's crap luck, but to sue on a basis of THINKING, not knowing they didn't maintain the tree???? Whatever judge has this should ask the lady if shes for real and throw it out.
 
Yes, guymayor, I would ask the questions I posted, and I would try to answer them for her.

I would try and see if it were due to negligence and if not, I'd tell her to drop it. I'd then help her with the medical costs if I could.

But, that's just me...
 
I think what happened to her is terrible but that doesn't automatically make her entitled to payment from someone. I think suits like this are a drain on us all.
There SHOULD be a way to compel property owners to maintain trees with potential targets but how? I have no idea. I do know I rather it NOT involve insurance companies.
 
I attended a recent "Trees and the Law" Seminar, and during a roundtable discussion between Randall Stamen, an RCA, a Muncipal arborist, and other representatives of different stakeholders concerning tree risk, a topic that was of concern to everyone was the fact that with the economy down, and governments and businesses being mandated to do more with less, urban foresters are less and less able to fund and provide "due diligence" to identify, prioritize and budget work to address risk in the trees they oversee.

When a shift is made by urban forestry managers and other tree owners, from "objective", to "crisis" management, the holder of the trees is, by default, assuming the additional risk of negligence, should a tree in their care cause injury or property damage.

I assessed a tree a few weeks ago, that came in on the high side of risk. The client determined that their best option was to remove the tree, however they stated that they couldn't afford to pay for the removal as they had other priorities. In the meantime, the tree is in the process of dismantling itself over various occupied residential, vehicle, and public sidewalk targets.

The trees and gravity apparently aren't in step with the economy.
 
This is the process we've adopted to compel owners to maintain their trees. The threat of a lawsuit. When the economy is slow or for that matter at anytime owners establish their risk tolerance at a fairly high level hoping that they'll not get burned. Risk management. So, we have someone stating their position and it is up to the experts for both sides and the courts to weigh all the evidence to determine if the owner's risk management plan worked or not.

We as arborist have a duty to follow such cases without bias to see how we should be advising our clients when assessing trees and risk.

That's how our world works.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, the tree is in the process of dismantling itself over various occupied residential, vehicle, and public sidewalk targets.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way to mitigate with a 7m polesaw?
wink.gif


tc, agree. I was responding to raven.

how else to resolve these events except through insurance?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think what happened to her is terrible but that doesn't automatically make her entitled to payment from someone. I think suits like this are a drain on us all.
There SHOULD be a way to compel property owners to maintain trees with potential targets but how? I have no idea. I do know I rather it NOT involve insurance companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.
 
"As soon as we adopt looser pays all expenses with no appeals the better."


Yeah, we should definitely do all we can to make sure that the big guys have even more incentives to use their financial muscle to avoid responsibility, and to even further discourage average people from having their day in court.

Maybe the poor woman should have had to pay the tree owner the going rate for firewood, for that branch she caught in the midsection.
 
Better yet sue the tree company servicing the site because the Arborist should have seen any defect on any tree that he passes by on a walk through and is responsible for the site once access is granted.

Or she could sue the car company for not designing the windshield to propertly deflect debris and holding up to impacts.

No really she should sue the weather man and National Weather Service for not recommending her to stay in the house during the storm.

Where does it end???
 
Interesting that anyone would assume that the woman who was injured has to be wrong for wanting the courts to hear her case and determine whether or not the owner of the tree exercised due care and diligence in maintaining their trees. If her case has merit, then either the insurance company will settle with her, or a judge or jury will find in her favor. If the case doesn't have merit, then the defendant will prevail.

Car manufacturers were successfully sued back in the 60's. That's why we have seatbelts. You think the big three auto makers all woke up one day and suddenly said "whoa, what if we built these things so that they'd actually be safe to drive?"

not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom