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.

Real Property
Negligence
Private Nuisance

Mike Buckley, Mary Buckley v. City and County of San Francisco, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive

Published: Sep. 24, 2021 | Result Date: Jul. 13, 2021 | Filing Date: Nov. 16, 2017 |

Case number: CGC-17-562543 Settlement –  $57,900

Judge

Samuel K. Feng

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas W.J. Purtell
(The Law Offices of Thomas W. J. Purtell)


Defendant

Frederick P. Sheinfield
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Mike Buckley and Mary Buckley (plaintiffs) are owners of real property located in San Francisco, CA (subject property). Hawk Hill Park is located on the upslope of plaintiff's adjacent subject property and consists of trails and open space with exposed sand, low-lying dune vegetation, and pine trees. In January 2017, land movement from Hawk Hill Park onto the adjacent rear boundary of the subject property caused failure of the retaining walls on the subject property consisting of an existing three-tiered timber retaining wall and dry stacked concrete block wall located along the rear of the subject property. In June 2017, a California Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer confirmed the failure of the retaining walls on the subject property caused by land movement from Hawk Hill Park. Before January 2017, the City and County of San Francisco (City) had noticed that the land movement from Hawk Hill Park would likely cause damage to the subject property. Plaintiffs brought an action against the City alleging that the City was negligent and failed to warn of the probable damage that was likely to occur.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants have ownership, control, management, maintenance of Hawk Hill Park. Plaintiffs contended that defendant was negligent by failing to warn plaintiffs of the potential damage on the subject property caused by land movement from Hawk Hill Park. Plaintiffs contended defendant had actual notice of probable damage likely to occur on the subject property due to land failure from Hawk Hill Park. Plaintiffs contended defendant's failure caused plaintiffs to suffer property damage. Plaintiffs contended defendant recklessly and negligently caused land movement from Hawk Hill Park to the adjacent rear boundary of the subject property. Plaintiffs contended that defendant interfered with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the subject property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $57,900.


#137816

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

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