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.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Negligent Repair and Maintenance

Paul DePace v. Alan Harris, Marcella Harris

Published: Apr. 12, 2008 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SC081361 Verdict –  Liability Only

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dean A. Olson
(Clark Hill LLP)

Heather L. Blume


Defendant

Ty S. Vanderford
(Vanderford & Ruiz LLP)

Rodolfo E. Ruiz


Experts

Plaintiff

Glenn D. Tofani
(technical)

Gary Applegate
(technical)

John Dereamer
(technical)

Robert Amoroso
(technical)

Defendant

Randy Roy
(technical)

Tim Lindsay
(technical)

Wayne Schick
(technical)

Facts

Paul DePace, a homeowner and plaintiff, noticed that cracks had formed on the upper slope of Alice and Marcella Harris' property in Hollywood Hills, defendants. Although plaintiff had notified the Los Angeles Department of Planning and Safety of the cracks, inspectors had deemed the slope stable. Plaintiff did not contact the Harrises about the cracks.

On Nov. 29, 2003, the 50-foot rocky slope collapsed, crushing plaintiff's home. The plaintiff sued defendants.

The plaintiff's experts testified that plaintiff's trees did not cause the collapse. Rather, plaintiff's expert stated that unabated water intrusion caused the gravel to decompose. The plaintiff also introduced evidence from defendants' neighbors who claimed they warned the defendants that the slope was unstable. The Harrises denied they were warned.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff argued that the collapse was caused by defendants' negligent maintenance of the upper part of the slope.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants counterclaimed, arguing that the bottom of the slope belonged to plaintiff, and that the collapse was caused by plaintiff planting ten cypress trees at the base of the slope. The defendants argued that the only loss of land caused was the unstable ledge that was outside of the defendants' property.

Damages

The plaintiff asked for $2.4 million for the loss of his house. The defendants counterclaimed for the costs of repair for the slope, $275,000, and future repair costs in the amount of $600,000.

Result

The plaintiff settled his claims against the defendants for an undisclosed amount. With respect to defendants' counterclaim, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding he was not negligent in maintaining the lower part of the slope.

Deliberation

45 minutes

Poll

12-0

Length

two weeks


#125243

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

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