Facts

December 2004 in Marin County was an extraordinarily rainy month, accumulating 16 inches of rain. On Dec. 27 alone, five inches of rain fell, causing a mudslide that damaged the homes of Paul and Marcena Peterson and Richard and Lisa Doering.

The Petersons sued the Doerings for negligence in maintaining their property. The Doerings responded with a cross-complaint for the identical causes of action.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The Petersons argued there was a leak in the Doering's swimming pool, causing the Petersons' property to be saturated and causing the mudslide.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The Doerings argued that the Petersons removed the lateral supports from their property because the slide started on the Petersons' property and progressed upslope in a series of movements. The Doerings argued therefore that the Petersons were strictly liable, even if it was an act of God and negligence could not be proved.

Settlement Discussions

The Petersons demanded $150,000 on the eve of the trial. The Doerings demanded $170,000. The Doerings' final offer to the Petersons was for $50,000. The Petersons' final offer to the Doerings was $25,000.

Damages

The Petersons sought a total of $250,000. Their claim included $67,000 in past expenses to repair their deck and its foundation, as well as $183,000 in estimated repairs, which included $95,000 to repair the land, $15,000 for engineering costs and $5,000 in permit fees. The Doerings sought $250,000 for the reduction in value to their property based on the higher of two repair estimates, $200,000, with the additional $50,000 in damages consisting of "stigma damages." The Doerings had sold the property two months before trial began and claimed the un-repaired land sold for $250,000 less than it would have otherwise. After sale of the house, they left $125,000 in an escrow account for the benefit of their buyer to pay the repairs if they did not prevail on their cross-complaint. The Petersons claimed the measure of damages (CACI 3903F) only allowed for $78,000 in costs of repairs, which would cover the Doerings' portion of the slide.

Result

The jury found for the defense on both the claim and the cross-claim. Thus, no money was awarded to either party.

Other Information

The Doerings filed motions for a new trial and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict which were denied on Aug. 27, 2007.

Poll

12-0

Length

10 days