Duty to trim or remove a tree that struck a power line

The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant-Consumers “did not owe plaintiff a duty to trim or remove the tree whose branch struck the power line.” Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of Consumers but affirmed as to defendant-McGinn. “A tree on McGinn’s property lost a branch in a storm, and the branch struck a power line operated by Consumers.” The focal point was “whether it was foreseeable that this tree would drop a branch on this line.” The court concluded that because “of the history of outages caused by trees on McGinn’s property, . . . Consumers had a duty to take proactive remedial measures to prevent this accident.” It also concluded that “the history of trees damaging power lines at this location created a duty to prevent future damage, and there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Consumers breached this duty.” Plaintiff focused primarily on Consumers and failed “to put forth a particularly well developed argument regarding McGinn.” The evidence suggested “that McGinn consistently reported issues with the power lines to Consumers, and he did not have a duty to go any further than that.”