Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

CITY OF DAVIS MISLEADS PUBLIC ON $24 MILLION WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT

Attorney Roger Dreyer Calls Out the City’s Failure to Take Responsibility Until the Last Minute

For Immediate Release: Kellie DeMarco

Woodland, CA — After a Yolo County jury unanimously found the City of Davis fully responsible for the tragic death of Jennifer Comey, a wife and mother killed by a falling tree limb in a city park sandbox next to her toddler, the City immediately pushed out a carefully crafted press release in an effort to control the narrative. But here’s what they aren’t telling the public.

For four years, the City of Davis denied responsibility, instead blaming private contractor DRG Inc. for the tragedy. It wasn’t until one week before trial ended—a clear PR stunt—that the City finally admitted fault while continuing to point fingers at DRG. However, the jury saw through the City’s tactics and ruled unanimously (12–0) that DRG was not responsible in any way. Instead, the jury held Davis 100% accountable for failing to inspect and maintain its own trees.

“What was most impressive about this case is that the jury was not distracted by the misleading tactics of the attorneys for the City,” said Roger Dreyer, attorney for the Pitts family. “They focused on the devastating loss this family has endured. This jury’s decision was a remarkable demonstration of how citizens do their job for the public.”

THE FACTS THE CITY WON’T SHARE

  • The tree was never inspected. Despite being in a public park where children play, evidence at trial showed the City had no scheduled inspections or maintenance plan for trees at Slide Hill Park.
  • City officials ignored warnings. The tree inventory conducted by DRG in 2018 recommended routine pruning and maintenance, but the City never followed through.
  • The jury ruled 100% against the City. The jury unanimously (12–0) cleared DRG of any responsibility and found that the City alone was at fault for years of neglect.
  • The City had a press release ready within minutes of the verdict. The moment the trial ended, the City released a pre-written statement portraying itself as proactive in addressing the issue. The truth? The evidence showed that for years after the incident, no real changes were made. Even as recently as 2024, expert testimony confirmed that trees in Davis parks were still not being properly pruned or maintained.
  • This case set a record. The $24 million verdict is the largest wrongful death award in Yolo County history—a reflection of the City’s complete failure to protect its residents.

“This case wasn’t just about admitting responsibility at the last minute,” Dreyer continued. “The evidence showed that the City of Davis had done nothing to maintain or inspect these trees for years. They knew the risks and ignored them. This wasn’t an accident—it was negligence. And now, an innocent family is left without a wife and mother.”

A FAMILY FOREVER CHANGED

While the Pitts family is relieved to see justice served, no amount of money can bring back a wife and mother. Jennifer’s young daughter, just three years old at the time, witnessed the tragedy firsthand—a trauma she will carry for life.

“This case is a reminder that city governments must do better,” Dreyer said. “People shouldn’t have to worry about their safety in public parks. And they certainly shouldn’t have to fight for four years just to get the truth.”

For further information or to schedule an interview with Roger Dreyer, please contact:

Kellie DeMarco
Kellie DeMarco Communications
kellie@kelliedemarco.com 

 

 

Posted by

davisite

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

14 responses to “CITY OF DAVIS MISLEADS PUBLIC ON $24 MILLION WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT”

  1. Colin Walsh

    I want to note a couple of things about this press release.
    1) The trial is over. The plaintiff’s attorney has little to gain by sending this type of press release. I believe this was sent out do to pure heartfelt disgust with the City of Davis’s continued efforts to PR this terrible tragedy away. In other words, even now, the city of Davis is still unwilling to truly accept responsibility or apologize.
    2) $24 Million found 100% against the City of Davis and 0% against the other defendant with a third defendant released from the case before trial demonstrates the jury and the judge found Davis solely responsible for the death.
    3 )This extraordinary case yielded an extraordinary verdict. $24 million is the highest ever wrongful death case in yolo county. The jury leveled this large verdict appropriately because the City’s neglect and unwillingness to accept responsibility is so aggreges.

    Reply
  2. Steven Kahn

    A question:
    What role did the Davis City Council play in this tragic incident?

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    “The truth? The evidence showed that for years after the incident, no real changes were made. Even as recently as 2024, expert testimony confirmed that trees in Davis parks were still not being properly pruned.”
    The truth is that they’ll prune them at the base where they meet the ground from now on. Unless they enact another tax. Who needs shade, anyway.
    The “truth” is also that this woman’s life probably wasn’t worth $24 million, based upon projected earnings. Probably not even a million.
    Another “truth” is that the jury seems to have lost perspective, and apparently wanted to tax themselves further. I’m not sure who exactly pays this, but this is absurd.
    Guess what, folks – you ARE the city. You ARE the government. There (generally) aren’t a bunch of bad guys/gals working for you, who are doing things against what you (essentially) tell them to do, one way or another. And yet, we never seem to learn that lesson.
    Another “truth” – don’t hang out underneath trees during windstorms.
    Though maybe the biggest truth is to get rid of (or severely trim) trees above picnic tables. That actually does seem “prune-dent”.

    Reply
  4. Tuvia etc

    Related: https://www.davisite.org/2024/08/city-weaponizes-friendly-flora-against-people-riding-bikes.html
    It took many weeks before this was resolved; a couple others with similar issues took longer for the city to trim or cut the trees or bushes.

    Reply
  5. Dan Cornfiord

    I fully agree of course that the City of Davis should be held responsible and that very considerable damages are appropriate for the husband and daughter. Davis has always done a bad job of maintaining its trees in my experience. However, one might ask whether, despite this, $24 million in damages iis appropriate and reasonable.
    People who support the amount of this award should ponder this very recent article from the SF Chron: “A looming threat could bankrupt California counties — and it’s not fires or Trump: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/los-angeles-county-lawsuits-bankrupt-20192755.php

    Reply
  6. Alan Hirsch

    The city manager nor any member city council made a s@comment about this tree damage award last night at 3/4 at council meeting. Or changes to tree program.
    If you believe in restorative justice the first step is to admit how you fell short.
    Davis needs repair.

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    “If you believe in restorative justice the first step is to admit how you fell short. ”
    Restorative Justice? Moo!

    Reply
  8. Alan Hirsch

    I talked to city arborist on phone the Friday before the tree-death on February 2021. My notes of that call indicate he was frustrated by lack of funding he got to prune the trees: it costs 10x more to prune after tree down than to do it proactively my notes indicate he told me. He said he proposed a way for city to fund improved pruning a few years earlier, but this was ignored by his management. Just like no increased funding for pruning was allocated out of measure H parked tax passed 3years before death. These are in my notes.
    I did not share with planiff this but I could have testified to this in court if supeanaed.
    There are also contemporaneous public comments and op-ed in enterprise on concern of cuts— and trial testimony of city record of complaint from public about trees in Slide Hill Park. Check out video of public comments 2/4/21 council meeting 3 weeks before accident, 35 minutes in.
    We in the Tree stakeholder community saw the city arborist at time was being set up to fail. We heard rumors he was written up in his personnel file for complaining too much. He complained at trial about inadequate computer system he was forced to use.
    He was also was a victim.

    Reply
  9. South of Davis

    Google says the Davis CA population is 65,832
    $24,000,000 / 65,832 = $364.56 per person

    Reply
  10. Ron O

    Alan H says “. . . it costs 10x more to prune after tree down than to do it proactively my notes indicate he told me.”
    I’ve found the opposite to be true. That is, it’s much easier (and a “one time job” that I can handle myself) to “trim a tree” after it’s cut down.
    As long as it didn’t land on someone or something when cutting it down.

    Reply
  11. Toni

    Commenter Ron O. forgot to mention a forensics economist calculated lost earnings and how much a person’s life could be valued in this case. His comment strikes me as misogynistic about this woman’s life value. The verdict awards the remaining husband and child for the tragic loss of a mother and wife, crushed by a tree limb that weighed in the vicinity of 1,500 pounds! Crushed her skull, broke her pelvis and laid there to die. I’m glad a jury found the City responsible. It’s a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided if the city would do its job. I too have notified the City about decaying trees. Some trees are still standing. Some were cut down.

    Reply
  12. Colin Walsh

    You are right Toni. Ron apparently thinks homemaking and caregiving (traditionally women’s toles) have zero economic value. The expert carefully detailed the significant economic value.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    It’s downright delusional to conclude that my comment had anything to do with misogyny.
    I would have said that same thing about the “value” of a man’s life.
    The fact is that the jury DID assign a value.
    I suspect that there’s parents who would voluntarily give up their lives, so that their kids could receive $24 million dollars (less attorney fees, of course).
    The truth is that there’s always a cost/benefit analysis in regard to human life – even if it’s not acknowledged. Health insurance companies do so all the time, as do families, etc.
    In fact, all industries do so – that’s how bridges get built for example. That’s how roadways get repaired, roads are repaired, airlines still operate . . .

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    That’s also the basis of the entire life insurance industry (that human life has a monetary value).
    So there’s really only two choices, in regard to how to look at such things:
    1) Human life has no monetary value.
    2) Human life has a monetary value. The only question being “how much”.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Colin Walsh Cancel reply