Confidential
Settlement – $115,000Judge
Court
Santa Barbara Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
In December of 1989, Plaintiffs husband and wife, a machinist and supervisor for a fabric manufacturer, respectively, were in their early 30's when they leased a single family dwelling on a 40-acre parcel from Defendants. The residence is located on an "antenna farm," a facility from which television and radio stations broadcast because of the clear sight fields necessary for long-range broadcasting. These antenna farms are usually in remote areas, as this was. Plaintiffs entered into a one-year lease with Defendants allegedly upon assurances from Defendants that the residence was "safe." During the Plaintiffs' tenancy, the Defendants wanted to expand the commercial aspects of the property, and the local county ordered an environmental impact report (EIR). The EIR's investigation allegedly revealed significantly higher levels of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) than Defendants had allegedly led Plaintiffs to believe. The Stanford physicist who conducted the RFR measurements for the EIR determined the area was not safe for human habitation because he believed that the RFR levels exceeded recommended human exposure levels set by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and the NCRP (National Council for Radiation Protection). RFR exposure at certain levels can lead to the development of cataracts, tumors, and cancers. The latency period ranges from a few years to several decades. Some experts believed that the RFR levels met the 1982 ANSI standards.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiffs contended that they demanded $250,000 and Defendants offered $30,000. Defendants contend Plaintiffs' original demand was $1,000,000, reduced to $250,000.
Specials in Evidence
not claimed not claimed
Injuries
Past, present, and future emotional distress and fear of cancer resulting from the RFR exposure. (The Plaintiff wife was approximately four months pregnant when the couple moved from the property. None of the family members have, as yet, displayed any ill effects of the exposure.)
Other Information
The Court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the Defendant primary lessee, with a finding that they had no legal duty.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390