> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # ‘Dangerous’ tree teaches Santa Monica costly lesson - URL: https://www.smdp.com/dangerous-tree-teaches-santa-monica-costly-lesson/ - Published: 2002-10-01T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:45:57.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Environment, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Attorneys unsure of challenge to $1M judgment* Santa Monica may have learned a hard lesson already well known in other communities across the state. A jury decided last week that the city must pay $1 million to a couple who were struck by a falling Eucalyptus tree when they were driving down Broadway Avenue January of last year. The split 9-3 jury awarded a little more than $1 million to James Holiday, who suffered a compression fracture to a vertebra in his back which lawyers said exacerbated existing problems with his lower back and neck. The jury was unanimous in awarding Joan Holiday $33,000. Some Northern California cities have declared the tree unsafe. Those cities have removed the red-flowering trees located near school playgrounds, parks and residential neighborhoods. The tree is known as the “Widow Maker” in its native Australia because it unsuspectingly drops limbs and falls over. Tree experts say Eucalyptuses do not bode well in urban areas. Unlike most trees which grow roots deep into the ground, Eucalyptus’ roots run along the surface, breaking up concrete sidewalks and asphalt streets in their path. As maintenance workers trim the roots over the years, it prevents root structures from forming which support the tree’s heavy branches. When that happens, simple gusts of wind can knock the tree over, experts say. Sam Davis, a retired arborist who worked on trees in the Santa Monica region for nearly 40 years, said people need to be aware of the dangers Eucalyptuses pose. “They are big trees,” he said. “There’s just not room for them to grow, and when the sidewalk folks come along and cut the roots, then they still grow tall but they don’t have the roots in place.” After watching an 80-foot-tall Eucalyptus fall down, which completely blocked a Santa Monica canyon road in the 1970s, Davis said he wrote city officials a letter warning them the same thing could happen in other areas. Davis said he’s especially concerned about the rows of Eucalyptus trees that line Seventh Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Montana Avenue. “They have been there a long time and they weren’t meant to be in a small constrictive space, like a boulevard,” he said. “It’s unfortunate but they need to be cropped back severely.” And Davis said he believes if the city had hired specialists to look at the Eucalyptus tree at the center of the Holidays’ lawsuit, the true condition of it would have been spotted. “It’s not an act of God that the tree fell, it’s somebody’s fault for not catching it,” Davis said. “It’s the city’s tree so the blame probably falls on them.” City attorneys argue the tree appeared healthy and there was no way city officials could have known that it would fall over. “We have a very aggressive tree trim policy,” said Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner. “This particular tree gave us no reason to believe it wasn’t a healthy tree. It was green and showed no signs it was unhealthy and we don’t cut down what appear to be healthy trees.” Walter Warriner — a Santa Monica Community Forester responsible for maintaining the city’s thousands of trees — was unavailable for comment Monday. At the trial, the city and plaintiffs agreed the tree’s roots were decaying but disagreed over whether or not the city should have known about it before the accident. Schachtner said city officials are disappointed with the jury’s decision because there is no way anyone could have known the tree was going to fall over. “We are weighing our options,” she said. “I don’t know if an appeal is something that we will pursue at this time.” The Holidays’ attorney, Robert Wolfe, said he would file a motion by the end of the week asking Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Linda K. Lefkowitz to confirm the jury’s verdict as a judgment against the city. He said his clients were pleased with the result of the jury’s verdict. “They found that the verdict was fair and just,” Wolfe said. After Wolfe files his motion for judgment, the city could appeal the jury’s decision, or it could ask for a new trial or request Judge Lefkowitz to reduce the amount of the judgment. “There is a provision in the law that provides for a reduction in the damages,” Schachtner said. “But again, we really haven’t had an opportunity to explore all our options yet.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 1, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/100102.pdf?ref=smdp.com)