This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Nuisance

Rianda v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area

Published: Nov. 12, 2005 | Result Date: Sep. 16, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 15016 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Edward Forstenzer

Court

Mono Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher E. Rolin


Defendant

David S. Baumwohl

John P. Nahra
(Baker Keener & Nahra LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Robert Schaffer
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Rianda, a homeowner, brought an action against defendant Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (MMSA) for breach of contract, nuisance, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that MMSA breached a written contract between 1998 and 2004 by its improper use of a parking lot in front of the plaintiff's home, which included construction staging and storage of construction materials during the summer months. MMSA failed to maintain certain landscaping in front of the plaintiff's home, also in breach of the contract. The plaintiff further contended that MMSA's activities were negligent and constituted a private nuisance and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff alleged that the value of the property at the time it was sold in 2004 had diminished by an amount between $140,000 and $190,000. DEFENDANT

The plaintiff contended that MMSA breached a written contract between 1998 and 2004 by its improper use of a parking lot in front of the plaintiff's home, which included construction staging and storage of construction materials during the summer months. MMSA failed to maintain certain landscaping in front of the plaintiff's home, also in breach of the contract. The plaintiff further contended that MMSA's activities were negligent and constituted a private nuisance and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff alleged that the value of the property at the time it was sold in 2004 had diminished by an amount between $140,000 and $190,000. DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied that it was responsible for any damage as a result of the landscaping. It also denied that its activities or those of anyone using the parking lot constituted a nuisance or that any activities were negligent.

Result

At the end of the trial, the causes of action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed. The jury returned a defense verdict on the remaining causes of action.

Deliberation

4.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

five days


#107759

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390