McKinley Park Tree Limb Verdict: Sacramento Jury Awards Jogger $33.3 Million

A Sacramento jury has awarded $33.3 million to Michael Flynn, a UC Davis doctoral student who suffered a fractured skull and traumatic brain injury when a dead tree limb fell on him while he jogged in McKinley Park in April 2020, and found the City of Sacramento 100% responsible. The McKinley Park tree limb verdict, filed October 9, 2026 and reported on October 15 and 16, rests on a claim that the limb had been visibly dead for years and that a reasonable inspection program would have found and removed it.

The case is a single-plaintiff premises claim, not a mass tort, but it matters to the plaintiffs' personal injury bar for a practical reason: it shows how far a California public entity's exposure can run when a jury accepts a constructive-notice theory built on the absence of an inspection system. Municipalities across the state manage millions of urban trees, and the same proof structure is available in every one of them.

What happened in McKinley Park

According to CBS Sacramento and KCRA, Flynn was running through McKinley Park, a landscaped city park in East Sacramento, in April 2020 when a dead limb about 30 feet long broke free and fell roughly 26 to 27 feet onto him. (KCRA reported a 26-foot fall; CBS reported about 27 feet.) He was 28 years old.

Flynn told KCRA he lost consciousness and woke in the hospital about three days later. Part of his skull had to be removed. At the time he was an MIT graduate working toward a Ph.D. in theoretical physics at UC Davis, roughly six months from completion, with plans to work in quantum computing. He did go on to earn the doctorate, but he told reporters the injury permanently altered his career and life plans. "Not a day goes by, not an hour goes by, that I don't feel the consequences of that accident," he told CBS Sacramento.

How much did the jury award in the McKinley Park tree limb case?

The jury awarded $33.3 million and assigned 100% of the fault to the City of Sacramento. Neither CBS Sacramento, KCRA, nor Hoodline reported a breakdown between economic damages (medical expenses, lost earning capacity) and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life), and the verdict form had not been published at the time of writing. One version of the KCRA report said a judge "awarded" the sum; the more consistent reading across outlets is that the jury returned the verdict and the court entered the award.

Item	Reported detail
Plaintiff	Michael Flynn, 28 at the time of injury
Defendant	City of Sacramento
Incident	April 2020, McKinley Park, Sacramento
Mechanism	Dead limb about 30 ft long fell about 26 to 27 ft
Injuries	Skull fracture, traumatic brain injury, partial skull removal
Fault allocation	City 100% responsible
Award	$33.3 million
Filing date	October 9, 2026
Plaintiff's counsel named in coverage	Jason Sigel; Robert Buccola
City statement	City Manager Maraskeshia Smith called it a "tragic incident"
Appeal status	Not reported as of October 19, 2026

Why was the City of Sacramento found liable for the falling tree limb?

The jury accepted the plaintiff's argument that the city had constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Attorney Jason Sigel told KCRA that jurors found "that limb had been dead long enough for a city to see it and remove it, had they had a reasonable inspection practice." Attorney Robert Buccola told CBS Sacramento that the city "were actually relying on users of the park to report problems" rather than inspecting its trees on a routine schedule, and that the limb had been dead for multiple years.

That framing tracks the statute. A complaint-driven system puts the burden of hazard discovery on the public. A jury that sees evidence of a long-dead limb overhanging a heavily used running path can conclude that the city, not the jogger, was the party in a position to find it.

What is a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code § 835?

California Government Code § 835 is the exclusive statutory route for most premises-type injury claims against public entities; public entities in California are not liable for common-law negligence except as a statute provides. Section 835 makes a public entity liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff proves:

1. the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury;
2. the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition;
3. the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred; and
4. either a public employee negligently or wrongfully created the condition, or the entity had actual or constructive notice of it in time to take protective measures.

Section 830 defines a "dangerous condition" as one that creates a substantial, as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way. A dead limb suspended over a running path in an urban park is an easy fit; the contested element in tree cases is almost always notice.

Constructive notice and the inspection-system evidence

Government Code § 835.2 supplies the notice rules. Actual notice requires that the entity knew of the condition and knew or should have known of its danger. Constructive notice requires the plaintiff to show the condition existed for long enough, and was of such an obvious nature, that the entity in the exercise of due care should have discovered it.

The statute then expressly makes admissible, on the due-care question, evidence of whether the condition would have been discovered by "an inspection system that was reasonably adequate" given the practicability and cost of inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the potential danger, and whether the entity maintained and operated such a system with due care. That is the provision the Flynn trial team appears to have built its case around: a multi-year dead limb plus no routine inspection practice equals constructive notice.

The defense side of the same provision is equally important. As the public-entity defense firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen notes in its overview of § 835 liability, a documented inspection system maintained with due care can make it hard for a plaintiff to prove notice. Cities that inspect, log, and act on findings convert § 835.2 from a sword into a shield.

Immunities that did not save the city

California's Government Claims Act contains a series of immunities that frequently defeat park and recreation claims, including natural-condition immunity (§ 831.2), trail immunity (§ 831.4), design immunity (§ 830.6), and hazardous recreational activity immunity (§ 831.7). Natural-condition immunity is generally associated with unimproved public property, and McKinley Park is a developed, landscaped city park; recreational running is not a listed hazardous recreational activity. Coverage did not report which, if any, immunities the city raised at trial, but the verdict indicates none disposed of the case.

Can you sue a city for a falling tree branch in California?

Yes. A falling tree or limb on city-owned or city-controlled property can support a dangerous-condition claim under § 835 if the plaintiff proves a dangerous condition, causation, foreseeability, and either negligent creation or timely actual or constructive notice. Control matters as much as title: an entity may be liable for property it does not own if it maintains or has the power to remedy the condition. Before any lawsuit, however, the injured person must satisfy the Government Claims Act's presentation requirements.

How long do you have to file a claim against a California city?

A claim for personal injury against a California public entity must be presented to the entity no later than six months after the cause of action accrues, under Government Code § 911.2. Under § 945.4, no suit for money damages may be brought until a written claim has been presented and acted on or deemed rejected. The California Supreme Court held in City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730 that the claim requirement applies even when the entity has actual knowledge of the circumstances. A claimant who misses the six-month window must seek leave to present a late claim, and failure to comply bars the action against that entity.

For practitioners, the six-month clock is the most common way a meritorious public-property case is lost before it begins. Flynn's injury occurred in April 2020, during the early pandemic, and his claim plainly survived that gate; the timing of his filing was not reported.

Are there damages caps on lawsuits against California public entities?

California does not impose a general dollar cap on compensatory damages in personal injury actions against public entities, which is why a $33.3 million award against a city is legally possible. The categorical limit is on punishment: Government Code § 818 provides that a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Civil Code § 3294 or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. The California Supreme Court has since read § 818 to bar damages whose primary purpose is punitive even when a statute serves secondary purposes.

Other California limits sit elsewhere. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act caps non-economic damages only in medical negligence cases, and Proposition 51 (Civil Code § 1431.2) makes non-economic damages several rather than joint; with the city 100% at fault in the Flynn verdict, apportionment is not a live issue. The practical constraints on a large public-entity verdict are therefore post-trial motions, appellate review of the sufficiency of notice evidence, and the mechanics of satisfying a judgment from municipal funds or risk pools rather than any statutory ceiling.

Will Sacramento appeal the $33.3 million verdict?

As of October 19, 2026, no appeal or post-trial motion had been reported. City Manager Maraskeshia Smith issued a statement describing a "tragic incident" and acknowledging its impact on Flynn and his family, but the city did not say whether it had changed tree-inspection policies since 2020 and did not announce its litigation plans. Under California procedure, the likely next steps for a public-entity defendant facing a verdict of this size are motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, focused on notice and damages, followed by a notice of appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal if those are denied.

What it means for practitioners

Plaintiffs' personal injury firms. The verdict is a template for public-entity tree cases: establish how long the limb was dead (arborist testimony on decay, photographs, satellite or street-level imagery), then show the entity had no proactive inspection program or did not follow its own. The jury's willingness to reach $33.3 million on a single brain-injury claim also signals that urban juries will value lost professional trajectories for highly credentialed plaintiffs.

Public-entity defense counsel and risk managers. Section 835.2 rewards documentation. A written, funded inspection cycle for high-use areas, with risk ratings and completion logs, is the evidence that defeats constructive notice. Complaint-driven programs that rely on residents to report hazards are now exhibit A for the other side.

Insurers, pools, and litigation funders. Because § 818 removes only punitive exposure and there is no general compensatory cap, public-entity tree-fall claims with catastrophic injury carry open-ended reserve risk. Funders evaluating these cases should weigh the six-month claim deadline and immunity defenses at intake; once those are cleared, notice is the dispositive fight.

Cities outside Sacramento. The proof structure is not unique to one park. Any California municipality with mature trees over paths, playgrounds, or roads faces the same § 835.2 inquiry, and urban forestry budgets now have a measurable liability counterweight.

FAQ

Who is Michael Flynn, the McKinley Park plaintiff?

Michael Flynn is an MIT graduate who was 28 and about six months from completing a UC Davis Ph.D. in theoretical physics when a dead limb struck him in McKinley Park in April 2020. He later earned the doctorate but says the brain injury ended his planned career path in quantum computing.

How much did the McKinley Park jury award?

The jury awarded $33.3 million and found the City of Sacramento 100% responsible; the award was filed October 9, 2026. No breakdown of economic and non-economic damages has been reported.

What legal theory made the city liable?

Dangerous condition of public property under Government Code § 835, proved through constructive notice under § 835.2: the limb had been dead for years and a reasonably adequate inspection system would have found it.

Can the City of Sacramento be ordered to pay punitive damages?

No. Government Code § 818 bars punitive and exemplary damages against public entities, so the award consists of compensatory damages.

What is the deadline to bring a tree-fall claim against a California city?

A written government claim must be presented within six months of the injury under Government Code § 911.2, and suit cannot be filed until the claim is rejected or deemed rejected under § 945.4.

Has the city appealed?

No appeal or post-trial motion had been reported as of October 19, 2026, and the city has not publicly stated its plans.