INTRODUCTION The Nebraska Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in McGinn v. City of Omaha' is difficult to reconcile with the record before the court. Taken at face value, the majority's decision, as the dissent suggests, transforms ""review of governmental tort claims ... to de novo on the record."" This Note suggests that the majority did not give the customary and proper respect to the trial court's findings of fact. It examines some of the approaches which various jurisdictions have taken to the question of municipal liability for harm caused by falling trees and branches. It also suggests that the unstated purpose of the majority decision may have been to impose by judicial fiat a limit upon municipal liability for negligently lax inspection programs when the city considers the program adequate to meet its obligations. If this interpretation is correct, then the Nebraska Supreme Court, as is explored in the Conclusion of this Note, may have improperly delegated to Nebraska's executive branch the judicial role of performing the cost-benefit analysis necessary to fulfill the legislature's intent of applying a negligence standard to municipal torts. "