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
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390