John Wigmore v. Pacific Materials Laboratory of Santa Barbara
Published: Feb. 8, 2001 | Result Date: Jan. 10, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 1002147 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Santa Barbara Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert M. Pride
(technical)
Defendant
Mark D. Hetherington
(technical)
David Samppala
(technical)
Facts
The defendants prepared a foundation exploration report for a vacant parcel of land. Two years later, the plaintiff
purchased the land and allegedly relied on the defendantÆs report in making his decision. The plaintiff wanted
to build on the parcel, but later decided not to. During the process of selling the home, the defendants were
asked to update their foundation exploration report for the potential new purchaser.
The defendants advised the prospective purchaser of additional information about the property and the potential
purchaser backed out. The plaintiff then sold the land at a loss of $210,000 and claimed that the defendants
should have disclosed the information in the original report.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $800,000 at mediation; reduced to $550,000 during trial. The defendant offered $50,000.
Damages
The plaintiff sought the difference in value between what he paid for the property and how much he sold it for; all expenditures during his eight years of ownership including attorneys fees for a specific performance action he filed to get title and losses from the avocados farming on the property and prejudgment interest.
Other Information
The plaintiff has indicated he is contemplating a motion for new trial. The case was plead as one for professional negligence against the defendant geotechnical engineer. The plaintiff alleged that a foundation exploration report prepared for a previous owner did not fully describe the soil and geology. The plaintiff alleged he purchased the vacant land in reliance on the report. The case went to the jury on a theory of negligent misrepresentation. The jury found that the representations in the report were neither false nor misleading. <E>Robert Pride, geotechnical engineer for plaintiff, testified that the standard of care required more complete disclosures. Mark Hetherington, geotechnical engineer for defendants, testified that defendants conduct was consistent with the standard of care for geotechnical engineers practicing in Santa Barbara at the period of time in question.</E>
Deliberation
two hours
Poll
12-0 (as to defendant Ron Pike), 10-2 (as to defendant Pacific Materials)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390