Facts

Russel Elgin purchased the subject property in Dunsmuir in 1963. To its east was the State's property relating to a right-of-way for the I-5 freeway. Elgin had obtained water to the property from an adjacent private water company since 1963. The private water company was owned jointly by the Estate of Van Fossen and McCloud, as administrator of the Estate of Harrison.

In February 2003, Elgin noticed water running in a ditch that passed under his driveway and traced the source to water leaking from a pipe. The pipes were repaired, but the leak continued. In 2005, a CalTrans representative visited Elgin's property and determined that portions of his property were saturated with water. Elgin claimed that his land began to settle shortly after the freeway was completed, which caused the pipes to shift, resulting in the leak. Further settling resulted in the subsequent leak. Eventually, a landslide caused the pipe to completely separate and, despite repairs, the land continued to move. The landslide caused Elgin's nearby property to be red-tagged in 2005.

The State of California (CalTrans) sought an injunction to enjoin water from entering onto the Van Fossen-Harrison property due to fears of an imminent landslide potentially impacting the I-5 freeway. The complaint also alleged nuisance. CalTrans later dismissed its complaint when no further slide activity or work was required to prevent the infiltration of water.

Russell Elgin, however, filed a cross-complaint against the State for negligence, injunction, and inverse condemnation.

The cross-complaint alleged that it was CalTrans' activity which destabilized the slope of the land which caused adjacent pipes from the water company to disconnect thereby causing further subsidence and the resulting damage.

CalTrans claimed the land was stable since the creation of the slope in 1959 and that none of its actions contributed to the damage.

Result

The court found Elgin's experts and facts more persuasive and ruled in Elgin's favor on the inverse condemnation theory. The value of the property was stipulated by the parties at $280,000. Attorney fees, costs and prejudgment interest were awarded under the inverse condemnation theory for a total judgment of $445,192. Cross-defendants were awarded their attorney fees as against cross-complainant.