ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh OKs $375K in falling tree injury in Schenley Park

Bob Bauder
| Thursday, July 25, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

Pittsburgh City Council gave preliminary approval Wednesday to settle a lawsuit for $375,000 with a woman who said she was badly injured when a tree fell on her as she was jogging in Schenley Park.

Heidi Spangler, 29, of Greenfield suffered multiple spinal and rib fractures and a collapsed lung when the tree fell at the Schenley Oval track on June 16, 2010, according to the lawsuit.

She said the injuries left her with permanent spinal nerve damage and the loss of bladder and bowel functions.

Spangler, a dental hygienist, sued the city, Duquesne Light, Lewis Tree Service Inc. of Henrietta, N.Y., and Costa Contracting Inc. of Cheswick, claiming they were responsible for a large rotten tree that grew near the track. The others have settled, although details were unavailable, according to court documents.

Spangler sought more than $2.6 million for medical expenses, loss of earning power and compensatory damages. She could not be reached.

“Considering what happened, we think it was a proper resolution to the matter,” Pittsburgh solicitor Daniel Regan said, adding that he would not comment further until after council's final vote scheduled for next week.

Duquesne Light spokesman Joey Vallarian declined to comment, as did Downtown attorney Doug Stipanovich, who represented the tree service. Stipanovich cited a confidentiality agreement. Neither Costa construction nor its attorney returned messages.

Spangler's attorney Edward J. Balzarini also declined to comment, citing the confidentiality agreement.

Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-765-2312 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me