A 20-Year Nuisance Claim Involving Falling Palm Fronds and a Personal Injury Claim Results in $3,000 Verdict
On October 1, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Eric Macdonald received a verdict at the Burbank Courthouse. This was a negligence, premises liability, and nuisance case. Plaintiff and husband and wife Defendants were neighbors in North Hollywood, California.
In 1980, Defendants planted a palm tree in their front yard, in honor of husband Defendant’s father. Over the last forty-six years, the tree has grown significantly and would shed palm fronds in the Santa Ana winds.
Plaintiff admitted to the jury that in 2006, he began documenting and building a case against Defendants. Plaintiff’s case started in 2006 when Plaintiff’s parents were allegedly hit by a falling palm frond. Over the years, Plaintiff took photographs of palm fronds scattering his property and neighborhood street. Plaintiff claimed all of the palm fronds were from Defendants’ tree, despite their being other palm trees in the neighborhood. Plaintiff claimed, but did not offer evidence, that palm fronds from Defendants’ trees constantly hit Plaintiff’s parked cars, causing dents, scratches, and dings. Plaintiff claimed that numerous cars were damaged over the years. Plaintiff testified that he ended up purchasing car covers to protect his vehicles, yet the “steak knife” palm fronds tore his car covers.
Plaintiff claimed that Defendants only trimmed their tree one time between the 1990s and 2020.
Plaintiff’s case came to a head when on January 22, 2022, Plaintiff claimed he was hit by a falling palm frond while walking out his front door. The front of Plaintiff’s home had numerous surveillance cameras, but allegedly, where Plaintiff was hit by the palm frond was the one area not in view of any camera. The palm frond allegedly knocked Plaintiff over into a planter and caused head, neck, right shoulder, and lower back injuries. Despite being hit by the palm frond, which Plaintiff testified was as sharp as a steak knife, Plaintiff did not have any cuts, bruises, or marks on his body. Plaintiff’s first medical evaluation came on February 16, 2022, when he visited his attorney-referred chiropractor. Plaintiff underwent chiropractic care for thirty-one visits and stopped on August 10, 2022. Plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment after August 10, 2022, but told the jury he had life-long pain in his neck and back. Plaintiff did not offer any medical expert or treating physician at trial.
Plaintiff claimed the palm tree was a nuisance and significantly diminished his use and enjoyment of his property. Plaintiff retained a real estate expert to opine that the nuisance caused a diminution in value of Plaintiff’s home, when Plaintiff chose to sell the home. On cross-examination, Plaintiff’s expert admitted he had never been to the property; never seen the property; did not know the property’s address; did not know if Plaintiff ever planned to sell the property; and knew nothing about the alleged nuisance. Plaintiff dismissed his diminution in value claim during trial.
Ultimately, the jury awarded Plaintiff $3,000 for past non-economic damages. The jury did not find Defendants liable for nuisance.
Read MoreDefendants’ Summary Judgment Obtained Where Handyman Falls Off Ladder at Defendants’ Home
On August 7, 2026, in the San Diego County Superior Court, Edye Hill secured a summary judgment victory against a Plaintiff who fell off a ladder while working at Defendants’ home. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for 1) General Negligence; 2) Premise Liability; 3) Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant To California Labor Code §§ 3700 & 3706; 4) Negligence Per Se; and 5) Loss of Consortium. After taking over the defense from prior counsel, Macdonald & Cody, LLP completed and successfully argued the summary judgment motion, securing a favorable judgment for the Defendants.
Plaintiff owned and operated his own handyman business. He testified that his handyman work did not require a contractor’s license. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was using a ladder to patch areas of the garage ceiling at Defendants’ home. Plaintiff lost his balance and fell from the ladder while working. The ladder was owned by Plaintiff. The work Plaintiff was hired to perform was expected to be completed within two to three hours. Plaintiff provided Defendants with an invoice for two hours of work and mileage, totaling $106.00.
The Court agreed with Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff was excluded from workers’ compensation coverage under Labor Code section and was not entitled to benefits, including the presumption of employer negligence under Labor Code section 3351 because a handyman performing work at a residential property is a residential employee.
For General Negligence, Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacked evidence to establish that Defendants owed a duty, breached any duty, or caused the incident. The Court concurred, finding no evidence attributing Plaintiff’s alleged injuries to any alleged breach of duty or causation by Defendants. Ultimately the Court found that Plaintiff’s use of his own ladder, Plaintiff’s placement of the ladder, and Plaintiff’s balance were the proximate causes of Plaintiff’s fall.
Regarding the Uninsured Employer & Negligence Pursuant to California Labor Code sections §§ 3700 & 3706, Defendants argued that Plaintiff was not an employee because he worked fewer than 52 hours. Defense Counsel was able to overcome the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 2750.5 that a worker performing services requiring a license is presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor because Plaintiff worked for only two hours. Because Plaintiff not being an employee, Defendants were not required to provide workers’ compensation insurance.
Under the Negligence Per Se cause of action, defense counsel argued that Plaintiff fell within the handyman exemption from licensing requirements because the project had a contract price of less than $500 and the work performed on the garage was considered minor. Defendants’ further argued that the failure to obtain a contractor’s license was not the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that the lack of workers’ compensation insurance coverage was the proximate cause of the accident or that workers’ compensation coverage would have prevented Plaintiff from falling off the ladder.
Finally, defense counsel argued that Defendants were not liable for the Loss of Consortium claim because Defendants were not liable for the incident. The Court agreed, finding that Plaintiff failed to prevail on the derivative claim because the underlying injury claim against the Defendants was unsuccessful.
Read MorePlaintiff’s Failure to Wear a Seat Belt Results in Defense Verdict
On August 18, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Alex Macdonald secured a defense verdict in Orange County. This was a disputed liability case. Plaintiff and his wife were passengers on a mini-coach vehicle driven by our client, the defendant driver. Plaintiff claimed injury primarily to his right knee after he fell out of his seat during a left turn executed by the driver between 5-13 mph. In the nearly two years following the incident, Plaintiff had five right knee surgeries. At trial, Plaintiff admitted that there was a seat belt available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not wear a seat belt, and there was nothing wrong with the left turn executed by the driver. Plaintiff and his counsel also admitted to the jury that Plaintiff would not have been injured had he been wearing a seat belt.
The sole issue for the jury was whether or not the defendant driver gave a safety speech to the occupants of the vehicle, including an instruction to wear the available seat belts. Plaintiff claimed that the driver did not, and Defendants claimed that the driver did. Plaintiff offered only himself and his wife as witnesses in support of Plaintiff’s position. Defendant offered the driver, company personnel, and an independent witness on the bus to support the position that the driver gave the speech, and always does on his trips.
Plaintiff waived all economic damages and only sought past and future pain and suffering damages. During closing, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $2,000,000 in past pain and suffering, and $3,000,000 in future pain and suffering, totaling $5,000,000. In a nine-to-three verdict, the jury determined that the driver was not negligent. Prior to trial, Defendants made a 998 offer for $150,000, which Plaintiff did not accept.
Read MoreProud Sponsor of the Whatever it Takes Golf Tournament 2026
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The Boys & Girls Clubs of Capistrano Valley and their upcoming event on September 14th, the 2026 Whatever it Takes Golf Tournament.
Macdonald & Cody Celebrates 10 Years at 2026 Annual Bowling Event
Macdonald & Cody, LLP recently brought together our team and their families for our annual bowling event. It was a time of friendly competition, good company, and a special celebration of the firm’s 10th anniversary!
Since opening our doors in 2016, Macdonald & Cody has grown alongside the talented attorneys and professionals who have helped shape the firm over the past decade. We are grateful to everyone who has been part of our journey and proud to celebrate this milestone together.
Thank you to our team and families for making this year’s bowling event especially memorable. Here’s to 10 years and many more to come!
Read MoreJury Awards $210,000 for Admitted Liability Accident with Two Claimed Surgeries
On May 27, 2026, Scott Macdonald and Steven Hingst secured a favorable trial verdict in Orange County. The matter involved a significant rear-end impact. We admitted liability, but contested causation for the claimed injuries. Plaintiff underwent a left shoulder surgery for a torn labrum and rotator cuff. Plaintiff also underwent a minimally invasive lumbar discectomy for alleged disc herniations at L4-5 and L5-S1. Plaintiff waived all past medical specials except for the lumbar procedure for which she sought $160,000. She sought future care, including a cervical fusion surgery, and requested $350,000. She asked the jury to award a total of $4,000,000.
We were able to demonstrate for the jury that the medical treatment received was lacking in a continuity of care given her being transferred from lien doctor to lien doctor. e introduced evidence of a subsequent accident which preceded the lumbar surgery. Plaintiff claimed she was uninjured in the subsequent loss. The jury awarded $100,000 in past medical bills, $75,000 in future medical bills, $25,000 in past pain and suffering and $10,000 in future pain and suffering. We will seek costs given that we had offered $500,000 by way of C.C.P. 998.
Read MoreLaura Flynn Published in Defense Comment Regarding Allen v. Patel
Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to share that partner Laura Flynn has been published in the Spring 2026 issue of Defense Comment, the publication of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada.
Laura’s article, Allen v. Patel: Million Dollar Verdict Vacated After Granting of New Trial Based on Misconduct of Plaintiff’s Counsel, Including Violations of Golden Rule and Reptile Theory, analyzes a significant California appellate decision addressing attorney misconduct, improper argument, and motions for new trial.
The article serves as an important reminder of the value of carefully crafted motions in limine to address and prevent attorney misconduct, particularly with Golden Rule and Reptile Theory arguments at issue. Laura examines the Court’s treatment of those issues and the broader implications for trial practice and defense advocacy.
We congratulate Laura on this excellent publication and are proud to recognize her contributions to the defense bar.
Read the article here: ADC Defense Comment Magazine, Spring 2026
Read MoreProud to support St. Paul High School Baseball
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is please to support Coach R.J. Lan and the St. Paul High School Baseball program in Santa Fe Springs, CA, through a donation to assist with their fundraising efforts.
Proud Sponsor of the 19th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The American Board of Trial Advocates, Orange County Chapter and the upcoming event on May 18th, the 19th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic.
Proud Sponsor of the 22nd Annual Federated Challenge
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, Big Brothers Big Sisters® and the upcoming event on July 27th, the 22nd Annual Federated Challenge.
