Case Background
On March 21, 2023, a violent "bomb cyclone" storm ripped through the San Francisco Bay Area, bringing dangerous winds and heavy rainfall. That afternoon, around 3:40 p.m., Qiaoying Han, a 55-year-old San Francisco resident, stood waiting for her bus at a Muni stop on Lincoln Way at 23rd Avenue, right along the northern edge of Golden Gate Park. Without warning, a massive tree branch broke loose from a nearby tree and came crashing down on her.
The City and County of San Francisco owned, controlled, and maintained everything at that location the tree, the bus stop, the sidewalk, the street, the pedestrian crosswalk, and the park trail nearby. The spot was a high-traffic public area that the City itself designated as an official Muni bus stop, marked with painted lines and lettering on the road, and intended for daily use by the public, including families and children.
Han's son, Yalong Dong of Daly City, California, and her daughter, Yajing Dong of China, filed government tort claims with the City after their mother's death. The City rejected those claims in writing on August 30, 2023. The family brought a wrongful death and damages lawsuit on November 22, 2023, in San Francisco Superior Court, naming the City and several of its departments as Defendants. The complaint raised four causes of action: dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Sections 830 and 835, negligence by government employees under Government Code Sections 815.2 and 820, negligence by independent contractors under Government Code Section 815.4, and failure to discharge mandatory duties under Government Code Section 815.6.
The City answered the complaint on February 23, 2024, denied every allegation, and raised 24 affirmative defenses. The case proceeded to a jury trial that began on September 3, 2025, before Judge Braden C. Woods in Department 608. A twelve-person jury heard testimony from witnesses on both sides before returning its verdict on September 29, 2025.
Cause
A large tree branch with pre-existing structural defects fell from a tree adjacent to the Muni bus stop and struck Han while she waited on public property. The Plaintiffs alleged the branch failed because it was overextended, end-heavy, and lacked the structural integrity to support its own weight. The tree's crown grew asymmetrically to the south, the tree carried a history of multiple prior branch failures, and one branch already had a longitudinal split that created a high failure risk. The tree sat on the park's edge, exposing it to stronger winds, and its species carried a higher probability of branch failure. The Plaintiffs contended these were long-standing, readily visible defects that the City knew about or should have caught through a basic ground-level inspection.
Injury
The falling branch struck Han with fatal force at the bus stop. She suffered catastrophic injuries and died as a result of the impact. Her estate claimed she endured physical pain and mental suffering before death.
Damages Sought
The Estate of Qiaoying Han sought compensation for pre-death pain and suffering, medical expenses, funeral and burial costs, lost wages, and lost earning capacity. Both children brought separate wrongful death claims for the loss of their mother's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. The Plaintiffs asked the Court for general and special damages to be proven at trial, along with prejudgment interest and costs of suit.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Yalong Dong, individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Qiaoying Han | Yajing Dong
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Walter H. Walker III | Clarissa E. Kearns | Andrew H. Meisel
Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco; San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency; San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation; Recreation and Park Commission; Department of Public Works
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Jose A. Zelidon-Zepeda | Stephen V. Harrington | Zuzana S. Ikels | David Chiu | Jennifer E. Choi | James F. Hannawalt | Samuel A. Leff
Claims
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
The Plaintiffs argued that the City owned and controlled the tree, the bus stop, the sidewalk, the street, and the surrounding areas of Golden Gate Park. They claimed the tree suffered from multiple long-standing and readily identifiable structural defects: overextended and end-heavy branches, an asymmetric crown growing to the south, a history of prior branch failures, and a pre-existing longitudinal split in one branch. The tree sat on the park's edge, exposing it to stronger winds, and its species carried a higher probability of branch failure. The Plaintiffs contended these defects created a dangerous condition that the City knew about or should have discovered through reasonable ground-level inspection.
Negligence by Government Employees
The Plaintiffs alleged that City employees — arborists, tree care workers, and maintenance staff — failed to properly inspect, prune, and maintain the tree in violation of ANSI Section 300 arboricultural standards, International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards, and several San Francisco Municipal Code sections. They further claimed the City failed to maintain a reasonably adequate inspection system and failed to operate the system it had with due care.
Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty
The Plaintiffs also alleged the City breached mandatory duties under its own Municipal Code and the San Francisco Urban Forest Management Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan, which required inspection, maintenance, risk assessment, and removal of hazardous trees and branches.
Defense
The City denied all allegations and raised 24 affirmative defenses. The defense argued the property was not in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident and that the branch failure resulted from the extraordinary storm — a "bomb cyclone" that killed five people across the Bay Area that day. The City invoked the Act of God defense, asserting the storm constituted an unusual and extraordinary force of nature that no ordinary care could have prevented. The City also raised design immunity, argued it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect, and claimed the risk was minor and trivial. The defense further asserted that Han assumed the risk of being outdoors during the storm and that any condition could not have been discovered through a reasonable inspection system at a practical cost.
Jury Verdict
A jury of 12 was empaneled and heard testimony from witnesses for both sides. After deliberation, the jury returned its special verdict on September 29, 2025.
On the dangerous condition of public property claim, the jury found that the City owned or controlled the property but determined the property was not in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident. This finding ended the inquiry into the dangerous condition claim without reaching questions about foreseeability, causation, notice, or affirmative defenses.
On the negligence claim, the jury found that a City employee was negligent in the course of employment. However, the jury then determined that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Qiaoying Han. Because negligence was not found to be a substantial cause of the harm, the jury did not reach the questions about damages.
The verdict form left blank all damages questions for pre-death pain and suffering of Han, for noneconomic damages to Yalong Dong, and for noneconomic damages to Yajing Dong.
Judge Braden C. Woods entered a Judgment on Special Verdict on October 30, 2025, ordering that the Plaintiffs shall recover nothing from the City and County of San Francisco. The Court awarded the City its statutory costs, fees, and disbursements, to be determined later according to proof.
