Loading...
Jessica West Claim Denial AppealCopyrighted November 20, 2017 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 21. ITEM TITLE: Jessica West Claim Denial Appeal SUMMARY: Senior Counsel recommending denial of an appeal of a claim against the City filed by Jessica West for vehicle damage as determined by Public Entity Risk Services' (PERS), the claim agency for the Iowa Community Assurance Pool (I CAP). SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Concur ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Staff Memo Staff Memo Claim Supporting Documentation Appeal Info Submitted by Claimant Supporting Documentation THE CITY OF L)UB E MEMORANDUM Masterpiece on the Mississippi BARRY A. LI NDAH L, E SENIOR COUNSEL MEMO To: DATE: November 15, 2017 RE: Jessica West Claim Mayor Roy D. Buol and Members of the City Council This is an appeal by Jessica West to the City Council from the denial of her claim for damage to her automobile which resulted when a tree fell on the vehicle in Eagle Point Park on July 29, 2017. Ms. West did not include a repair estimate with her claim. The claim was referred to Public Entity Risk Services (PERS), the claims agency for the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool. PERS investigated the claim and determined that the City was not at fault. Municipal Liability for Damage Caused by Falling Trees Attached are two Iowa Supreme Court opinions on the subject of municipal liability for falling trees. The law is well established. A city is required to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain its streets in a safe condition for travel in the usual and ordinary modes of travel. However, a city is not required to keep its streets in a condition of absolute safety. It is only required to use ordinary and reasonable care to that end. It does not insure the safety of travelers upon its streets, nor is it required to foresee and provide against every possible accident. It must have actual notice of the dangerous condition of the street, or the condition must have existed for a sufficient time to enable the city to discover and repair the same, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care and diligence. A city is ordinarily liable for injuries to travelers resulting from the fall of a tree growing on or overhanging the street or way, provided it had actual or constructive notice of its dangerous condition and failed to take proper measures to remove. The failure to remove a decayed tree does not constitute negligence in the absence of a showing that the decay was visible or known to the proper party. Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374, 377, 92 N.W.2d 577, 579 (1958). OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DUBUQUE, IOWA SUITE 330, HARBOR VIEW PLACE, 300 MAIN STREET DUBUQUE, IA 52001-6944 TELEPHONE (563) 583-4113 / FAx (563) 583-1040 / EMAIL balesq@cityofdubuque.org In Pietz, the court also observed: It cannot be said that trees do not break and fall except when there is negligence upon the part of the one having control thereof. Trees live and grow to considerable height and size and are, year in and year out, naturally exposed to the elements, including winds. Common experience tells us that for a tree to be broken during a storm or high wind is not such an unusual occurrence in itself as to raise an inference of lack of due care upon the part of the one having control thereof. It just does not speak for itself, at least to that extent. City Urban Forrester Tom Kramer was at the scene of the incident on the day of the damage. He was able to inspect the tree. He observed that the tree had healthy branches and green leaves. The middle of the tree appeared rotten but that condition was not visible from outside the tree. We are not aware of any Iowa appellate court decision imposing on cities a duty to have a regular or continued inspection of street trees or a duty to inspect that which presents no visible signs of defects or danger. The only duty would be to use reasonable care to discover defects or dangers presented by trees. Inspection of the 6,800 trees, according to Tom Kramer, is limited to observing visible signs of a problem, in which case the condition is investigated further. The City did not have actual notice of the defective condition of the tree, nor is there any way to know whether the condition must have existed for a sufficient time to enable the City to discover and repair the condition, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care and diligence. In addition to the foregoing common law principles of a city's responsibility for a defective tree, Iowa Code Section 670.4(1) provides that a city is immune for liability for "(f) Any claims for damages caused by a municipality's failure to discover a latent defect in the course of an inspection." The City Attorney's Office concurs with the conclusion that the City is not liable for the damages. BAL:tls Attachment cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Crenna M. Brumwell, City Attorney Steve Fehsal, Park Division Manager Tom Kramer, Urban Forester Brenda Snyder, Public Entity Risk Services Jessica West F \Users\Laserfche Legal\Claims\VV\West Jessica\MayorCouncil_RecommendationToAppealOfClaimDenial_111517 docx Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374 (1958) 92 N.W.2d 577 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Feely v. City of St. Louis, Mo.App. E.D., May 23, 1995 250 Iowa 374 Supreme Court of Iowa. Ronald L. PIETZ, by his next friend, Colus Arlene Pietz, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. CITY OF OSKALOOSA, Mahaska County, Iowa, an Incorporated Municipality; Charies G. Brown, as Mayor of the City of Oskaloosa, Iowa; The City Council of the City of Oskaloosa, Iowa; Charles C. Whitaker, Robert Watson, Charles L. Walling, Daws W. Barr, Rex M. Johnston, A. Van Hulzen and Dale Pace, as Councilmen of the City of Oskaloosa, Iowa; Oskaloosa Park Commission, Glenn Upton, Chairman, Roy Coe, Secretary, and Harry Roenspiess, as members of Commission, Defendants -Appellees. No. 49486. Oct. 14, 1958. Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1958. Action against city and others for injuries sustained by plaintiff when part of a tree standing in park fell upon automobile in which plaintiff was seated. The Mahaska District Court, Frank Bechly, J., directed a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, Hays, J., held that where competent firm of tree repairmen, employed by city, inspected trees in park, including one which broke off on a day when there were gusts up to 65 miles per hour and fell upon automobile parked adjacent to park causing injury to plaintiff, city was not negligent in failing to detect and remove from park the tree which in no way appeared or was thought to be decayed or unsafe prior to break. Affirmed. West Headnotes (7) [1] Municipal Corporations Parks and Public Squares and Places Statute providing that cities and towns shall have the care, supervision, and control of all public highways, streets, avenues, alleys, public squares, and commons within the city and shall cause the same to be kept open and in repair and free from nuisances applies to parks although not specifically designated therein. I.C.A. § 389.12. Cases that cite this headnote [2] Municipal Corporations a- Nature and Grounds of Liability Municipal Corporations Care Required as to Condition of Way Statute providing that towns shall cause all public highways, streets, public squares and commons within the city to be kept open and in repair and free from nuisances requires the city to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the streets in a safe condition and a city is not required to keep the streets in a condition of absolute safety and city does not insure the safety of travelers upon its streets nor is it required to foresee and provide against every possible accident. I.C.A. § 389.12. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Automobiles Falling Objects City was not liable on basis of a nuisance for injuries sustained by plaintiff while seated in an automobile parked on street abutting a city park when part of a tree standing in park fell upon automobile, in absence of showing that city had actual or constructive notice of dangerous condition of tree. I.C.A. § 389.12. 3 Cases that cite this headnote WESTLAW 5 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374 (1958) 92 N.W.2d 577 [4] Automobiles 4.• Falling Objects Where competent firm of tree repairmen, employed by city, inspected trees in park, including one which broke off on a day when there were gusts up to 65 miles per hour and fell upon automobile parked adjacent to park causing injury to plaintiff, who was seated therein, city was not negligent in failing to detect and remove from park the tree which in no way appeared or was thought to be decayed or unsafe prior to break. I.C.A. § 389.12. 2 Cases that cite this headnote 151 Automobiles Falling Objects There is nothing inherently dangerous in a live tree standing in a municipal park, but even assuming a failure of duty upon part of city in allowing a tree alleged to be decayed to remain standing in park, the most that such conduct would constitute would be negligence and not a nuisance for which recovery could be had for injuries sustained when part of tree broke off and fell on automobile in which plaintiff was sitting. I.C.A. §§ 389.12, 657.1, 657.2. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Negligence Nature and Character of Accident or Injury Negligence Control or Management of Instrumentality Negligence 4.- Creation of Inference or Presumption In order for doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to be applicable, instrumentality causing injury must be under exclusive control and management of defendant, and the occurrence must be such that in ordinary course of things it would not have happened if defendant had used reasonable care in use of the instrumentality, but even though those two factors are present, the happening of an injury only allows and does not compel an inference that the defendant was negligent. Cases that cite this headnote [7] Automobiles Existence of Defect or Happening of Injury Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable to an action for injuries sustained by plaintiff when tree in city park broke and fell during a high wind upon automobile which was parked on street adjacent to park and in which plaintiff was sitting. I.C.A. § 389.12. Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms **578 F. M. Beatty, Sigourney, Life & Davis, Oskaloosa, for appellant. Hugh Ben McCoy, L. R. Carson, Oskaloosa, for appellees. Opinion HAYS, Justice. In the center of the public square in Oskaloosa, Iowa, is a public park owned and, through a Park Commission, maintained by the City of Oskaloosa. Within this park are trees, shrubs, etc., such as are ordinarily found therein. Along the border thereof, which abuts upon a public street, the city has placed parking meters at regularly marked intervals for use of the general public. *376 On April 3, 1956, plaintiff, a minor, while seated in a car, thus parked, was injured when a part of a tree standing in the park fell upon the car. This action is for the recovery of damages on account of injuries then sustained. Defendants are the City of Oskaloosa, the members of the City Council, the Oskaloosa Park Commission and its members. The petition is in three Counts: Count I stated specific acts of negligence. Count II seeks recovery on the basis of a nuisance. Count III is based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. There was a trial to a jury and at WESTLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374 (1958) 92 N.W.2d 577 the close of all of the testimony, the trial Court sustained defendants' motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff appeals. Appellant assigns as errors the refusal of the trial Court to submit to the jury Counts I, II and III, respectively. Liability under each Count is predicated upon Section 389.12, Code 1954, I.C.A., which is as follows: 'They (Cities and Towns) shall have the care, supervision, and control of all public highways, streets, avenues, alleys, public squares, and commons within the city, and shall cause the same to be kept open and in repair and free from nuisances.' Ownership and control of both the park and the street in question is conceded to be in the defendant city. [1] [2] I. While recovery is sought primarily for a failure to maintain the street as is required by the above quoted statute, so far as the city is concerned, and to maintain the park as to defendant Park Commission, the statute applies to parks, although not specifically designated therein as `Parks', and the duty and responsibility of the city is the same be it a street or a park. **579 Florey v. City of Burlington, 247 Iowa 316, 73 N.W.2d 770. That duty is well stated by this Court in Abraham v. City of Sioux City, 218 Iowa 1068, 1070, 250 N.W. 461, 462, where it is said, 'This statute requires the city to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain its streets in a safe condition for travel in the usual and ordinary modes of travel. However, a city is not required to keep its streets in a condition of absolute safety. It is only required to use ordinary and reasonable care to that end. It does not insure the safety of travelers upon its streets, nor it is *377 required to foresee and provide against every possible accident. It must have actual notice of the dangerous condition of the street, or the condition must have existed for a sufficient time to enable the city to discover and repair the same, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care and diligence.' See, also, Florey v. City of Burlington, 247 Iowa 316, 73 N.W.2d 770, supra; Hall v. Town of Keota, 248 Iowa 131, 79 N.W.2d 784. 131 II. The duty and liability of the city would seem to be the same as to any faulty street condition, i. e., reasonable care and diligence. 25 Am.Jur., Highways, Sec. 490, states the rule to be, `A Municipal Corporation is ordinarily liable for injuries to travelers resulting from the fall of a tree growing on or overhanging the street or way, provided it had actual or constructive notice of its dangerous condition and failed to take proper measures to remove.' See, also, 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 818; Annotation 14 A.L.R.2d 197. In Cody v. City of North Adams, 265 Mass. 65, 164 N.E. 83, it was held the failure to remove a decayed tree does not constitute negligence in the absence of a showing that the decay was visible or known to the proper party. So far as the instant case is concerned, we deem the tree in the park to come under the same rule as if it had stood in the street and the duty of the city to be as above stated. [4] III. Count I charges negligence in the failure of the city to detect and remove from the park a decayed, rotten and dangerous tree. It presents primarily a question of fact. The tree in question, an ash, was located in the park some 25 feet west of where the car was parked. It was some 2 feet in diameter at the butt and about 50 feet in height. All parties are agreed that it was a live tree and, on the day in question, an unusually strong wind was blowing. There is testimony of gusts up to 65 miles per hour. The entire top of the tree broke off at a place some 28 feet above the ground, splitting the trunk down some 15 feet before it broke clear. There is a dispute in the record as to whether or not the break was at a fork in the tree, but it is clear that after the break no limbs or branches remained on the stump left *378 standing. While it is disputed, there is testimony, based upon an examination of the broken part of the tree, that it was decayed at the place of the break and was deteriorated. There is not however a word of testimony that, prior to the break, this tree in any way appeared, or was thought to be, decayed or unsafe. It also appears in the record that in October or November, 1955, a competent firm of tree repairmen, employed by the city, inspected the trees in the park including the one in question which was found and reported to be in good condition. Viewing this record in the light most favorable to appellant we are unable to find even a scintilla of evidence tending to show a breach of duty upon the part of defendants as is charged in Count I of the petition. 151 IV. Count II alleges that allowing the tree to remain standing in the park in its decayed condition constituted a nuisance. We think it clear that an unsafe tree, assuming such to be this case, does not come within our statutory definition of a nuisance. Sections 657.1 and 657.2, Code 1954, I.C.A. In Hall v. Town of Keota, supra, the WESTLAW v 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374 (1958) 92 N.W.2d 577 following statement is quoted with approval from a Missouri case [Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 485]: **580 'That to constitute a nuisance `there must * * * be a degree of danger (likely to result in damage) inherent in the thing itself, beyond that arising from mere failure to exercise ordinary care in its use." [248 Iowa 131, 79 N.W.2d 790.] There is nothing inherently dangerous in a live tree standing in a park and, even assuming a failure upon the part of defendants in allowing this tree to remain standing, the most that one would have would be negligence and not a nuisance. Submission of Count II was properly refused. V. Under Count III appellant relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The ingredients of this doctrine are clear but the application of the rule under any given state of facts is often difficult. [6] For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply two factors are essential. (1) The instrumentality causing the injury must be under the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and (2) the occurrence is such that in the ordinary course of things it would not have happened if defendant had *379 used reasonable care in the use of the instrumentality. Where these two factors are present, the happening of an injury allows but does not compel an inference that defendant was negligent. Eaves v. City of Ottumwa, 240 Iowa 956, 38 N.W.2d 761, 11 A.L.R.2d 1164; Young v. Marlas, 243 Iowa 367, 51 N.W.2d 443; Shinofield v. Curtis, 245 Iowa 1352, 66 N.W.2d 465, 50 A.L.R.2d 964. As to the second factor a different situation exists. It cannot be said that trees do not break and fall except when there is negligence upon the part of the one having control thereof. Trees live and grow to considerable height and size and are, year in and year out, naturally exposed to the elements, including winds. Common experience tells us that for a tree to be broken during a storm or high wind is not such an unusual occurrence in itself to raise an inference of lack of due care upon the part of the one having control thereof. It just does not speak for itself, at least to that extent. Young v. Marlas, supra, is referred to at length by appellant. There, during a high wind, a glass transom fell and injured plaintiff. The claim of defendant was that an Act of God, the high wind, was the sole proximate cause. No claim is made that one factor of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was not present. In the instant case while it is claimed there was an unusual wind, no claim that it was an Act of God is advanced. It is claimed, however, that the second factor, above stated, does not exist and we agree. The cases are clearly distinguishable. Finding no error the judgment of the trial Court is affirmed. Affirmed. All Justice concur. All Citations [7] It is conceded by all parties that the instrumentality, 250 Iowa 374, 92 N.W.2d 577 the tree, was under the exclusive control and management of the city. End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW c 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Meyers v. Delaney, 529 N.W.2d 288 (1995) 529 N.W.2d 288 Supreme Court of Iowa. Richard P. MEYERS and Judith K. Meyers, Appellants, v. Michael R. DELANEY and Robin Lynne Delaney, Appellees. No. 93-1488. March 29, 1995. Neighbor brought negligence action against tree owners for damages neighbor sustained when tree limb fell on his foot. The District Court, Lee County, D.B. Hendrickson, J., entered judgment for tree owners. Neighbor appealed. The Supreme Court, Neuman, J., held that: (1) tree owner may only be liable for injuries caused by defective condition of tree if tree owner had actual or constructive notice of tree's defective condition, and (2) evidence sustained finding that tree owners did not have actual or constructive knowledge that their tree posed hazard to neighbor. Affirmed. West Headnotes (5) [1] Appeal and Error Same effect as verdict Appeal and Error Substantial evidence When case is tried to court at law, trial court's factual findings carry force of special verdict and are binding on appellate court if supported by substantial evidence. 8 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Evidence Sufficiency to support verdict or finding Evidence is "substantial" if reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach same findings. 3 Cases that cite this headnote 131 Negligence 4— Off -Premises Injuries Negligence Off -Premises Injuries It is general rule that one who maintains trees owes duty to avoid injuring persons on adjoining premises by permitting tree to become so defective and decayed it will fall on them. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Negligence 4— Trees Tree owner may only be liable for injuries caused by defective condition of tree if tree owner had actual or constructive notice of tree's defective condition. Cases that cite this headnote 151 Negligence Premises Liability Evidence sustained finding that tree owners did not have actual or constructive knowledge that their tree posed hazard to neighbor and, thus, tree owners were not liable in neighbor's negligence action for damages neighbor sustained when tree limb fell on his foot; friend who removed dead limb from tree and who had cut down over 50 trees in recent years testified that there was nothing unsafe about tree, expert tree trimmer testified that there was nothing about tree that would have alerted tree owners to concern over tree's safety, and neither tree owners nor neighbor harbored any concern about safety of tree prior to limb's falling on neighbor. 1 Cases that cite this headnote WESTLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Meyers v. Delaney, 529 N.W.2d 288 (1995) Attorneys and Law Firms *289 Kermit L. Dunahoo of Dunahoo Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellants. Ann M. Cisco of White & Johnson, P.C., for appellees. Considered by LARSON, P.J., and NEUMAN, SNELL, and TERNUS, JJ. Opinion NEUMAN, Justice. Cedar Rapids, LAVORATO, This negligence action, tried to the court, concerns landowner liability for tree maintenance in a residential neighborhood. Plaintiffs, injured by a falling tree limb, claim the district court applied an incorrect legal standard and disregarded the evidence in reaching a verdict for the defendants. Finding no error, we affirm. The home of plaintiffs Richard and Judith Meyers adjoins • property owned by defendants Mike and Robin Delaney. Standing between the homes, on Delaneys' property, is a large catalpa tree. The tree's limbs hang over the Meyers' driveway. The Meyers park their car under it each day. One evening in mid-July 1990, Richard ran barefoot out to his car to roll up the windows. He heard a loud crack and then a large limb fell from the catalpa tree, striking and severely lacerating his foot. He was hospitalized for his injury and has incurred considerable pain and expense incident to his recovery. The Meyers sued the Delaneys for negligence in one or more of the following particulars: (1) failure to properly maintain the tree; (2) failure to warn the Meyers of the dangerous condition of the tree; and (3) failure to protect the Meyers from a danger which, in the exercise of reasonable care, the Delaneys knew or should have known to exist. The Delaneys answered with a general denial and, in the alternative, alleged that Richard's injury (and Judith's consortium claim) resulted from Richard's own negligence or an act of God. The case was tried to the court. Upon conclusion, the court ruled that the record did not support an act -of - God defense, nor had the Meyers sustained their burden of proving the Delaneys were negligent. This appeal followed. 1 Further facts will be detailed as they pertain to the arguments presented. [1] 121 I. Our decision is largely controlled by the applicable standard of review. Because the case was tried to the court at law, our review is limited to the correction of legal error. Iowa R.App.P. 4. The trial court's factual findings carry the force of a special verdict and are binding on us if supported *290 by substantial evidence. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. v. Igram, 319 N.W.2d 189, 192 (Iowa 1982). Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Voeltz, 431 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 1988). II. The Meyers claim on appeal that the district court too narrowly construed the Delaneys' duty to inspect their catalpa tree and warn the Meyers of the risk of harm it presented. They contend the Delaneys were obliged to regularly inspect for nonvisible decay, and the court erred in ruling otherwise. We disagree. 131 It is the general rule that one who maintains trees owes a duty to avoid injuring persons on adjoining premises by permitting a tree to become so defective and decayed it will fall on them. 62 Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 689, at 260-61 (1990); see Israel v. Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., 292 S.C. 282, 356 S.E.2d 123, 127 (S.C.App.1987); Mahurin v. Lockhart, 71 I11.App.3d 691, 692-93, 390 N.E.2d 523, 524-25 (1979). This, in essence, is the standard applied by the district court here. The Meyers' quarrel is with the corollary rule, applied by the district court, that proof of a tree owner's actual or constructive knowledge of a defect or safety hazard is a condition precedent to liability. See generally 62 Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 690, at 261- 62 (1990). We have not previously had occasion to address the scope of a private landowner's duty to maintain trees in a residential area. Nearly fifty years ago, however, we predicated a municipality's analogous duty on actual or constructive knowledge of a tree's dangerous condition. Pietz v. City of Oskaloosa, 250 Iowa 374, 377, 92 N.W.2d 577, 579 (1958). In Pietz we adopted the rule that "failure to remove a decayed tree does not constitute negligence in the absence of a showing that the decay was visible or known to the proper party." Id. Our decision rested on the idea that the city was expected to maintain its streets in a condition of reasonable—not absolute—safety for WESTLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Meyers v. Delaney, 529 N.W.2d 288 (1995) travelers. Id. We observed that a city could not be expected "to foresee and provide against every possible accident." Id. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 363(2) (1965) (requiring urban landowner to exercise reasonable care to prevent unreasonable risk of harm due to trees on land near highway). In a case factually similar to the one before us, the New York Court of Appeals rejected the duty of inspection advanced here by the Meyers. Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326, 488 N.E.2d 72 (1985). The court said: [T]here is no duty to consistently and constantly check all trees for nonvisible decay. Rather, the manifestation of said decay must be readily observable in order to require a landowner to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. Id. at 351, 497 N.Y.S.2d at 327, 488 N.E.2d at 73-74. [4] We think the New York court's ruling is sound and in accordance with our decision in Pietz. The record before us reveals that the limb causing Richard's injury was green and leafy; the decay at its base, sixteen -feet above the ground, was not apparent from external observation. Contrary to the argument advanced by the Meyers, we think it would be onerous indeed to burden a landowner with the duty to inspect trees for nonvisible decay. Thus we hold fast to the general rule imposing on a landowner the duty to use reasonable care to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to adjoining premises from diseased or otherwise unsafe trees. But, like the court in Ivancic, we limit liability to those situations in which it is established that the tree's owner had actual or constructive notice of the tree's defective condition. The district court was correct in so ruling. [5] III. The record before us contains substantial evidence to support the district court's judgment for Delaneys based on the applicable legal standard. A reasonable fact finder could easily conclude that these defendants were without actual or constructive notice that their catalpa tree posed a hazard to the Meyers or anyone else in July 1990. A year before the accident the Delaneys had hired a friend to remove a dead limb from the tree. The friend, who was not a *291 professional tree trimmer, testified that he observed nothing while in the tree to cause him concern about his safety. The Meyers urged at trial, and now argue on appeal, that the testimony is entitled to little or no weight due to the friend's limited credentials. But the record reveals, and the district court found, that the friend had trimmed or cut down approximately fifty trees in recent years in exchange for the firewood they provided to heat his home. Thus his opinion on the condition of the tree was entitled to whatever weight the fact finder determined. See Kaiser v. Stathas, 263 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1978). The expert tree trimmer hired by the Meyers, moreover, reached essentially the same conclusion. Before trial he tendered the opinion, based on his observation of the fallen limb and tree from the ground, that the tree was unsafe. At trial, however, he testified that there was nothing about the tree that would have alerted the Delaneys to concern over its safety. He noted some rotting and a hollow spot but stated that, overall, the tree was healthy and, in his opinion, he would not have taken it down before the accident. The record reveals that neither the Meyers nor the Delaneys harbored any concern about the safety of the tree prior to the limb striking Richard. Robin Delaney permitted her children to play around it when outside, and the Meyers parked their car under it daily. Although the tree reportedly dropped twigs with some frequency, no limb of any size had fallen from the tree prior to the accident. Clearly the record supports the district court's conclusion that the Delaneys had neither actual nor constructive knowledge that the tree was diseased or posed a hazard to the Meyers. Accordingly, we believe the court correctly dismissed the Meyers' claims of negligence. The district court's judgment for the defendants must be affirmed. AFFIRMED. All Citations 529 N.W.2d 288 WESTLAW 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Meyers v. Delaney, 529 N.W.2d 288 (1995) Footnotes 1 Only the court's ruling with respect to negligence has been challenged on appeal. End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA This written report constitutes your claim against the City of Dubuque, Iowa. You should complete this form in full and attach any additional information that supports your claim. The Claim must be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall, 50 W. 13th St., Dubuque, IA 52001. It will then be referred by the City Council to the appropriate department for investigation. Once that investigation is completed, a report and recommendation will be submitted to the City Council. You will be provided with a copy of that report and recommendation. THE FINAL DECISION ON ALL CLAIMS IS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NO EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION TO YOU AS TO WHETHER YOUR CLAIM WILL OR WILL NOT BE PAID. 1. Name of Claimant: QG5S>' -- 40(5-s7-- 2. /0 7-'2. Address: c7/97/ S 7 9- / r�r2/d4l/t /� S130:2 3. Telephone Number: (:% 7 ' 07o7 4'f 4. Date of Incident: ,V7J c>' -f, o&'17 5. Time of Incident: /5-57 /-7/7 6. Location of Incident (Be specific): PO/err r— / , /< /f/ 7. DESCRIBE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE THAT CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE. (Give full details upon which you base your claim. If a City employee was involved, give the employee's name.) - D Go/ v0 /4-' t=i %/Ccs A6Z G /Y )A/ /A,45/''/Zi_4 /,'G� /y���/Ur� Pr75Sz�6r.� / ezv / oz.s /u 4,- s -e_ L._ . 8. What were weather conditions like? / et=i �, S'(-�-�y /-..g.->/ tiU i/4/) 9. Give name and address of any witnesses: /X9 `/6 r�zt'(-y/-'y71-7o/c4'9-4-- X'�'/ 10. Did police investigate? (If so, give names of officers.) (-/V 11. Was anyone injured? (If so, give names, addresses, and extent of injuries). BOJ 12. Was any damage done to property? (If so, describe property and the extent of damages. Attach estimates of damages or describe basis for ascertaining extent of damage.) .5537-7/7/ /5'l/ `C-ZA-Z '7D v/5&Oh-7` 7-71`.4C fry 4.)Q04 -cJ'-' PJ��v 2;1'0 - AST–..,?'(j �� /�C>eYv>v3 /)/-1- 4-� �- -i�sTi�Ta12 /x/.07 - /22 � c�e ��,/��s�U�/��'f� /R/X/tA-6 65- 13 What other damages do You claim, if any? c (5- /(/' 5 SOT / Cid //.=;tic e 77 ,e),2/ i� / 7- /S //v ASO 6. V`/ v fti e /cA/ , /17y (2/51,2 14. Have you been compensated for any part or all of your claim by any insurance company? (If so, give name and address of insurance company and amount paid.) ///O, E/ti /&- ��cr9 Usk 9/7y 4',1--S 1 ��vg-1-c tit) G /—Y- ' " 5-c/71'15. What amount do you claim from the City of Dubuque? c/'(/'f-4S'4/z5/7`'C < <= ,tel'- e-),Auc /0/] � :W:)6 2i '4/1/ �f ��i 7 S;r/2,T/�V c. -. ��Sf / L ��/l.� - �'�' v zl - s�0�, o'OZ)zXz 16. Why do you claim the City of Dubuque is responsible? <<` 77-e-4 92/5t2.e Cy/? / 17. Have you made any claim against anyone else for damages as a result of this incident? (If yes, give name and address.) il/U 18. If the answer to Question 17 is yes, have you received any payment from that source, and if so, in what amount? Dated at Dubuque, Iowa this lo%H day of 41--eia,v57- , 20/ 7. ��-"....._ (Signature) (Print Name) /2/4176-3 .'v`Pz7 / %/ 6v1///-1--- 7- 4/2r`L%7 /57-;'-`/ e `7-6 /`l - /C, A./ /41-'7"V 6 G 7e7 ze' /,v ���.�� c`7-) (Rev. �7 2 /,fid/ S C .moi �� )/ -Q e Confidential This communication and any attachments may contain information which is confidential and privileged by law and is for the use of the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of its contents is prohibited. Please notify City of Dubuque immediately by telephone at (563)-589-4120 of your receipt of these items and destroy the communication and any attachments immediately. Further disclosure of this information may violate state and federal restrictions. Confidential information may include the following: 1) Social Security Number(s) 2) Medical/Health Information 3) Personnel/Disciplinary Information 4) Bank Account Information 5) Financial Information 6) Credit Card Numbers If any documentation you desire to submit to the City of Dubuque contains any of the items above, this cover sheet must be attached directly to the confidential information. Please indicate below the type of information that is included. 1, i3.7- . hereby certify that the attached documents include the following protected information: Social Security Number(s) Bank Account Information Medical/Health Information Financial Information Personnel/Disciplinary Information Credit Card Number(s) I understand that this information may be distributed within the City organization or to agents of the City for processing and I hereby authorize the City to act accordingly taking all precautions to protect my information from unnecessary distribution. jature Date have read the information above and do not have any confidential documentation to submit to the City of Dubuque as part of this Claim Against the City. ian ure Date Fonn 4433003 (11-13) INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT MAIL REPORTS TO. Iowa Department of Transportation. Office of Driver Services. P O. Box 9204. Des Moines. lova 50306.9204 Time of Accident County Accident occurred within corporate limits of (city) 07129/2017 15:54 Date of Accident Hrs. I DUBUQUE - 31 DUBUQUE - 2100 I Drivers Na a - Last First U •I 1 C 0 M M E R C A L P E R S 0 NI Address Date of Birth Driver's License Number City Male FemaleI Stal@ ClassLss: Endorsements Restriction NE Wco oust Given' Test DTesstt Given: I CDL Citation Charge 1 Yes to - Citation Charge 3 Sheet 1 of 4 / Law Enforcement Case Numbers:/ 2017-005859 Middle State Zip Citation &barge Citation Charge 4 Test Result. Re-exam: Yes No I Reason for Re-E4m Request: 00 Owner's Name - Last First Middle WEST JESSICA LYNN Address City State Zip 2911 5TH AVENUE APT 1 MARION IA 152302 icense Plate No. State YearVIN: Year Make Mode( Style EDX604 IA 2017 Color I 2A4GP44R97R245139 SIL 12007 CHRY TOWN & COUN !/I VN Trailer Plate No. Staff Yea//VIN: Tow Tow 9 Towed To 2 1 ArokV.cont Roak orRepuu $4,000.00 Insurance Company tame Insurance Co. Phone Number Insurance Policy Number PERMANENT GENERAL I (800) 280.1466 /ost Damaged Area Extent of Damage Total Occ. in Veh. 95 -IA -3526210 Initial Travel Direction Veh Act. Veh. Config. Cargo Body Type Veh erect Point of Inital Impact I rr 99 112 04 101 01 I 12 112 14 J 0 Special Veh. Func Er41er8 ency S tus Bus a Driver Condition Vision Obsc/red Contributing Circumstances Driver (up to xi) Driver Distra lions Speed Limit 01 01 88 01 / 15 Traffic Controls Horizontal Alignme 1 Vertic I Alignment SEQUENCE 1 Firs(Event 1 Second Event I Third Event Fe rth Event 1 Most Harmful Event 01 `01 01 OF EVENTS 30 30 Carrier Name/LesS�e Street Address City Number of Axles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Ua DOT Number Haz Mat Involvement Haz Mat Placard Placard Number 1 Haz. Mat Released 1 Haz Mat Class Trailer Plate: State Year VIN Trailer Plate: State Year VIN Converter Doty Doty (late: Stat Plate Yea 1 VIN Phone Number: (319) 899-2248 DRIVER OF UNIT 1 Transported to Name 1 Phone Number DOB. Address 1 Transportsd to - MC Number Haz Mat Name Occupant ProlCCtian State Zip Code Undefr defOverride 1 - NONE 9 O Tran,Portsg+by: 5 w a w 0 1 Source of Transport Transport by: Mod al sconelonrout° Name I Phone Number DOB. N N Address 1 Transported to: U T Name 1 Phone Number I DOB. E 1 Address I Transports to: D Name Phone Number I DOB' Address Transported to: 1I 1111!1 Transported by: I 111-1 Transporte b 11 y. III Transported by: 1 1 JJ' INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT Form 4433003(11.13) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT MAIL REPORTS TO: Iowa Depanment of Transponalicn. Office or Omer Services. P O. Box 9204, Des Moines, lows 50309-9204 Date of Accident Time of Accident County Accident occurred within corporate limits of (city) L 0712912017 15:64 Hrs. DUBUQUE - 31 DUBUQUE - 2100 0 Literal Description C SHIRAS AVE MEASURING 2413 FEET NORTH FROM LINCOLN ST AND SHIRAS AVE ' ' I If accident occurred outside of T city limits show general vicinity On Road. Street or Highway: 0 N NE E SE S SW W N 000p002! Int section thth. of nearest city Note: Unless accident occurred at an intersection which is completely described above, use the space below to give the exact location from a milepost or definable intersection. bridge. or railroad crossing, using two distances and directions if neccessary. N NE E SE S SW W N N NE E SE S SW W N Milepost Number 00000000 and 00000000 Definable intersection, Or bridge. or railroad crossing ACCIDENT ENVIRONMENT Location or First Harmful Even; 01 Weather Conditions (up to two) Manner of Crast"Cottisicn 98 01 Light Conditions 1 Sudace Cone8tions 01 First Harmful Event (Crash) 30 Name 001 N 0 Address: V ionsponeo lo: v N RI ame sl Address. Address. TTransported to: NP OR NO VP WORKZONE RELATED? If Property other than vehicles damaged explain Owner's Last Name ALLIANT ENERGY E E Address H R 1031 IOWA STREET I T If Property other than C Y vehicles damaged explain UI Owner's Last Name L r+ w Address R G1 Last Name W 1 I Last Name T N Last Name E S I Last Name S Last Name ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Major Contributing Circumstances Environment 98 Roadway Type of Roadway Junction/Feature FRA No. Y11J No Activity Location��// Type I Phone NurnOer Object Damaged ELETRICAL POLE IObject Damaged First Name First Name First Name First Name First Name Signature of Officer WADDICK JORDAN Name of Agency DUBUQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT Report Reviewed By Phone Number First Name City DUBUQUE First Name City Ad fess Address Address Address Address 01 u c o 01 2 0 3 c u' c F o m C c Q pis U p 7 e U Q $ 5 p 1 Workers Present _ = sa = m a g s o A v3 a` v N v h a /I DOB. Alcohol Test Gwen lust Resutt4: I CJ.' ---g Ted Gti.en tes6lt I Cnargd J ydl No 0 Sheet 3 of 4 Law Enforcement Case Numbers: 2017-005859 Legal Private Zil Intervention? ❑ Property? County: Route: 31 X Coordinate 692741.75 Y Coordinate 4712074.00 of If Divided Highway. Provide Route trardinal) Travel Direction NB SO EB WB - ransported by. DOB: 1 1 S 1 Alcohol ((fest Given Test Result ` 1 Drug T 4t Given Transported by: Badge Number 4 Date of Report 07/29/2017 Date of Review Middle Name State I Zip Code IA I 52001 Middle Name State Zip Code City City City City City ke0i CLrgel YLs No 00 Estimate of Damage Phone Nd ber (800) 255-4268 Was owner or tenant notified? 1 = Yes 2 = No 9 = Unknown 1 Estimate of Damage Phone h.tmber Was owner or tenant notified? 1 = Yes 2 = No 9 = Unknown State - ip Code Phone Number State Zip Cede Phone Number State Zip Code Phone Number State Zip Code Phone Number Stall Zip Code Phone Number Time Officer Notifie8 of Agent I Time Officer Arrived At Scene j�+l 16.46 H s. 17:28 Hrs. Investi ation made at scene? T I. No. Y< N O Report iven to all Drivers? Other Technical Investigating Agency YW N 0 I 4 8/3/2017 IMG_2260.JPG https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/15da93ad474ed6d3?projector=1 1/1 8/3/2017 IMG_2262.JPG https•l/mail.google com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/15da93ad474ed6d3'projector=l 1/1 8/3/2017 IMG 2261.JPG https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#uibox/15da93ad474ed6d37projector=1 1/1 8/3/2017 IMG_2242.JPG https://mail.google.com/mai /ca/u/0/#inbox/15da93ad474ed6d3?projector=1 1/1 October 10, 2017 To: City of Dubuque Administration, City Council and Legal Department RE: Appealed decision of the Eagle Point Park Incident July 29, 2017 From: Jessica Lynn West This letter is in response to a denial of a claim that was initiated after my car was struck by a falling tree in Eagle Point Park. RECEIVED LivED 1700T II 1:05 City Cierk's Office IA July 29 was a beautiful, sunny day with almost no breeze and moderate temperature with no weather issues what so ever evidenced by no flying hair or clothing in many family photos. We even had a successful balloon sendoff. My family rented the Riverview pavilion for a memorial and celebration of life for my aunt Sharon Hartig. If we had been aware that the area was unsafe to be in, we would have looked for another location. Moments after arriving for the event, I was notified that a tree fell over on my car and on my uncle Dick Hartig's car almost totally demolishing both and cutting off the electricity to the nearby pavilions, making it impossible to show the videos for the event or play any music or have electricity to keep food warm. Instead everyone's attentions were focused on the accident instead of the death of my aunt. Thank god that we or our families were away from the vehicles when the tree fell and there were no injuries. The reason stated on the denial of my claim are simply not true. When I got the letter I quickly researched the TH for the previous weeks weather as well as the national weather station and the almanac which all stated great weather with no rain or stormsinthe Dubuque area from the 24`" of July through the 29th. Before the tree was removed that evening and the power restored several people from the event took photos of the scene including the dying and diseased tree. The tree showed signs of dead branches and a rotten core from the outside of the tree to the photos of the inside of the tree trunk and the broken branch that fell directly on my car. The weather was most certainly not the cause of the tree falling and by the looks of the tree it should have been removed a long time ago. Dead tree wood was scattered all over our cars and the street evidenced by multiple photos. Our cars were towed from the park and my car was stored at a local wrecking company. I was told that if it was left in Dubuque the city would be able to better assess the damage. The car was not drivable. After my claim was denied, an elderly man that is a friend of the family had my car brought back to Cedar Rapids and had a new wind shield put in the car and the glass cleaned out of the interior so I would have a car to drive. As of several weeks after the incident I am finally driving my beat up car that now has no radio and many dents. I am a single mother of three kids that has to get them to and from school and doctors etc. and this van is my transportation. The loss of my vehicle was no fault of mine and I was told by the officer present and the park ranger not to worry about it because it should be covered by the city since it was their tree and property that caused my car to be wrecked. We have photos of the weather reports from all three sources, photos of the tree, cars and area and have shared them with you already and photos of the officers present. My insurance has a high deductible and would be impacted even more if some of the claim was covered by my insurance. The insurance company also agreed that this accident was not my fault in any way shape or form. I am again seeking assistance from the city of Dubuque to reimburse my friend for the storage and towing and repairs already made to my car and for the cost of a vehicle to use temporarily and to complete repairs that need to be made to restore my car to where it was when I drove into the park that day. I am still making payments on my vehicle and didn't have it to drive for several weeks. I am estimating my losses to be approximately $4,800.00 at this time. Please contact me if there is anything else that I need to provide for evidence. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and for considering this appeal. Respectfully submied, Jessica Lynn West 2911 5th Avenue #1 Marion, la 52302 Iowa Communities Assurance Pool August 31, 2017 Ms Jessica West 2955 51h Ave., Apt. 1 Marion, Iowa 52302 RE: Claim No.: ICP047550A1 Our Member: Dubuque Date of Loss: 7/29/17 Dear Ms. West: We have reviewed the file pertaining to the above captioned claim. We have made inquiries into the claim and are able to advise you of our decision. Our review showed that a tree in the City Park caused damage to your automobile. Our investigation showed that the tree was in good condition. We determined the cause of the Toss was due to unforeseen high winds. Our investigation determined the City is not liable for your damages. Review of case law states if the City was not negligent in failing to detect and remove the tree which in no way appeared or was thought to be decayed or unsafe prior to this incident. We are sorry that you have incurred a loss. If you should have any further questions or concerns please contact the undersigned at (515) 727-1595. Sincerely, czNiA,4_14, Brenda Snyder Sr. Claims Adjuster Iowa Communities Assurance Pool CC: Dubuque English O'Conner Insurance 5701 Greendale Road • Johnston, IA 50131 www.icapiowa.com • (T) 800-383-0116 • (F) 800-689-1918 Loss Control: 800-239-7557 • Claims: 888-520-4074 9/28/2017 Iowa NWS Contacts '` o'; NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Iowa NWS Contacts weather.gov > StormReadv > Iowa NWS Contacts Click on the city name to link to the WFO Home Page. Click on the email address to reach your NWS contact. Todd Heitkamp Sioux Falls, SD 605-330-4247 Todd.Heitkamp@noaa.gov Lyon Osceola Brian Smith Omaha, NE 402-359-2394 Brian.E. Smith @noaa.gov Kelsey Angle Des Moines, IA 515-270-4501 KelseyAngle@noaa.gov Todd Shea LaCrosse, WI 608-784-8275 Todd. S hea@noaa.g ov Emmet Dickinsor Sioux O'Brien Plymouth Cherok on s Clay Palo Alto Winn ebag Kossuth Worth Mitchell Howard Hancock Floyd Shickasa Crro Gordo ;ena Vista Humboldt Fiowh to Wright Franklin Mama nneshiec Bremer Butler CalhounlWebster lamilton Fayette Clayton Black Haw'c Hardin I Grundy 13uchana Story Marshall Polk 1 Jasper 1 Page , Taylor Ringgold Decatur Wayne Tama Benton ow eshiek Iowa Mahaska Linn Johnson Washingt Keokuk Monroe Wapetlo fferson Appanoose Davis https.//www.weather.gov/stormreat Hen ry an Burer Storm Ready National Program es Donna Dub berke Davenport, IA -563.386-3976 Donna.Dubberke @noaa.gov 9/28/2017 Storm Events Database - Search Results 1 National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database Search Results for Dubuque County, Iowa . Vind 0 events were reported between 07/24/2017 and 07/30/2017 (7 days) Summary Info: Number of County/Zone areas affected: 0 Number of Days with Event 0 Number of Days with Event and Death: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death or Injury. 0 Number of Days with Event and Property Damage: 0 Number of Days with Event and Crop Damage: 0 Number of Event Types reported: 0 Column Definitions: 'Mag'. Magnitude, 'Dth'. Deaths, 'Inj': Injuries, 'PrD': Property Damage, 'CrD' Crop Damage Wind Magnitude Definitions: Measured Gust:'MG', Estimated Gust:'EG', Measured Sustained.'MS', Estimated Sustained.'ES' Click on Location below to display details. Available Event Types have changed over time. Please refer to the Database Details for more information. Select All Wind Speeds • Sort By: Datemme (Oldest) • Location Countv/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Maq Dth PrD CrD Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K https:l/www.ncdc.noaa govlstormevents/listevents.jsp?eventT _ _ u .i :... c...: _ 11 ::c 1/1 9/28/2017 Storm Events Database - Search Results I National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database S:;r,Irc.:i .«esu.ts for JJaugLu'„Uu'l.y, C Na Dubuque county contains the following zones: 'Dubuque' • anc Gi13U;L 1' ; (i oaysj Summary Info: Number of County/Zone areas affected: 0 Number of Days with Event: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death or Injury. 0 Number of Days with Event and Property Damage: 0 Number of Days with Event and Crop Damage. 0 Number of Event Types reported: 0 Column Definitions: 'Mag'. Magnitude, 'Dth': Deaths, 'Inj': Injuries, 'PrD'• Property Damage, 'CrD': Crop Damage Wind Magnitude Definitions: Measured Gust:'MG', Estimated Gust 'EG', Measured Sustained.'MS', Estimated Sustained 'ES' Click on Location below to display details. Available Event Types have changed over time. Please refer to the Database Details for more information. Select: All Wind Speeds • Sort By: Date/Time (Oldest) • Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z.. Tvpe Maq Dth PrD CrD Totals: 0 0 O.00K 0.00K https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp':avo,..;),A.. .U63Z.OZv' i'.,y/i•wviootxvey;nDate_mm=07&beginDate_dd=24&beginDateyyyy=20... 1/1 9/28/2017 Storm Events Database - Search Results I National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database Search Results for Dubuque County, Iowa Event Types: Heavy Rain 0 events were reported between 07/24/2017 and 07/30/2017 (7 days) Summary Info: Number of County/Zone areas affected: 0 Number of Days with Event. 0 Number of Days with Event and Death: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death or Injury. 0 Number of Days with Event and Property Damage: 0 Number of Days with Event and Crop Damage. 0 Number of Event Types reported: 0 Column Definitions: 'Mag'. Magnitude, 'Dth': Deaths, 'Inl' Injuries, 'PrD': Property Damage, 'CrD'. Crop Damage Click on Location below to display details. Available Event Types have changed over time. Please refer to the Database Details for more information Sort By: DaterTime (Oldest) • Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Maq Dth lai PrD CrD Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K ,; :.. 1;1 9/28/2017 Storm Events Database - Search Results 1 National Centers for Environmental Information Storm Events Database Search Results for Dubuque County, Iowa Event Types: Strong Wind Dubuque county contains the following zones: 'Dubuque' 0 events were reported between 07/24/2017 and 07/30/2017 (7 days) Summary Info: Number of County/Zone areas affected: 0 Number of Days with Event: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death: 0 Number of Days with Event and Death or Injury. 0 Number of Days with Event and Property Damage: 0 Number of Days with Event and Crop Damage: 0 Number of Event Types reported: 0 Column Definitions: 'Mag': Magnitude, 'Dth': Deaths, 'Inj'. Injuries, 'PrD': Property Damage, 'CrD': Crop Damage Wind Magnitude Definitions: Measured Gust:'MG', Estimated Gust:'EG', Measured Sustained:'MS', Estimated Sustained:'ES' Click on Location below to display details. Available Event Types have changed over time. Please refer to the Database Details for more information Select: All Wind Speeds • Sort By: Date/Time (Oldest) • Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Maq Dth Inl PrD CrD Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K https://vmv.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28Z%v29+Strong+Wind&beginDate_mm=07&beginDate_dd=24&beginDate_yyyy= .. 1/1 9/28/2017 20170729_155205.jpg https://mail.google.comlmail/u/O/#inbox/15eca79968d87365?projector=1 1/1 9/28/2017 6191.jpg https://mad.google.com/mad/u/0/#inbox/15eca782ef4f57a 1 ?projector -1 1/1 n y f�� CflZ 0154-O /32.14/69.cs h t �I iia`%� b�'�=