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.

Torts
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
Interference With Prospective Economic Relationship

City of Portola v. Department of Fish and Wildlife

Published: Dec. 12, 2015 | Result Date: Oct. 22, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV09-00065 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Plumas Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

G. David Robertson

Raymond Paul Johnson

Steven C. Gross

John V. Diepenbrock

David A. Diepenbrock


Defendant

Kevin W. Reager
(Office of the Attorney General - Sacramento County)

Raymond Rouse


Experts

Plaintiff

Marcus Bole
(technical)

Arthur H. Gimmy
(technical)

Gilbert R. Coleman
(technical)

Defendant

Ronald Tjeerdema
(technical)

Peter Moyle
(technical)

Ryan Stifter
(technical)

Facts

In September 2007, the Department of Fish and Wildlife applied the insecticide Rotenone to Lake Davis and its tributaries to eradicate the invasive Northern Pike from the lake. The lake is near the City of Portola. The Department was concerned that the pike were destroying the trophy trout fishery at Lake Davis and, if they escaped the lake, they could devastate fragile downstream salmon, steelhead and trout populations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the poisoning of the lake damaged its reputation and caused real property values to drop resulting in a loss of real estate tax revenues to the city. The city further contended that it relied upon Lake Davis as a water source and the use of Rotenone interfered with its water rights. Finally, the city claimed that following the eradication, the department negligently restocked the lake with fish infested with parasitic copepods.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the use of Rotenone was necessary to protect the trout in Lake Davis and downstream fisheries. The department paid the city for the construction of alternative water sources. The department further contended that the decline of property values was due to the widespread recession and not anything having to do with the eradication project.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff sought $82 million in damages. Prior to trial, the city made a CCP 998 demand for $39 million. Defendant made a CCP 998 offer of $100.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict. The jury concluded that the department did not negligently over poison the lake and did not interfere with any economic relationships. The jury did find that the department negligently restocked the lake with fish infested with parasites but found that there was no harm to the city.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 16, 2009.

Deliberation

one day

Length

11 days


#110793

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

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