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
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
Inverse Condemnation, Nuisance

Patrick S. Barrett, Patricia Chan, Morris Checansky, Iris Checansky v. County of Ventura

Published: Dec. 12, 2009 | Result Date: Jan. 27, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV239187 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark A. Papay

Richard L. Moomau


Defendant

Alan E. Wisotsky

Jeffrey B. Held


Experts

Plaintiff

Daniel Bone
(technical)

Louis Nagy
(technical)

Patrick Boales
(technical)

Larry D. Gurrola
(technical)

Jimmy Dean
(technical)

Howard Janotta
(technical)

Defendant

Raymond Gutierrez
(technical)

Glenn C. Hawks
(technical)

Facts

A pair of married couples, plaintiffs Patrick Barrett and Patricia Chan and Morris and Iris Checansky, owned adjoining homes in Camarillo that shared a 170-foot drainage pipe. Parts of their property collapsed into a nearby ravine on Jan. 23, 2005. The plaintiffs sued defendant Ventura County for inverse condemnation, nuisance, and dangerous condition of public property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the drainage pipe between the properties permitted storm water to seep into the ground, thereby destabilizing the hillside. The pipe was used for drainage for county-owned public streets as well as a privately owned residential development. The county had notice of this condition because two similar hillside collapses had previously occurred.

The court instructed the jury that the county had no duty to warn plaintiffs of the danger even though they had knowledge of the condition and had used plaintiffs' properties for over 40 years to reach public streets.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The county claimed it had no connection with the drainage pipe or the easement on which it lied. The county rejected a dedication of the drainage easement in 1963 by the private developer. The county contended that it only owned a five-foot drainage inlet between the street and sidewalk, but this could not have caused the collapse of the properties. The faulty drainage pipe was made of poor material, which resulted in rust and corrosion and inability to drain properly.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $2,361,024. The defendant did not make an offer.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed that continued risk of destruction due to erosion persists. They also claimed emotional distress. The plaintiffs claimed $2 million for hillside-restorations costs, and $50,000 for damage mitigation. Also, they sought $500,000 for emotional distress. Barrett and Chan claimed they lost numerous avocado trees worth another $200,000.

Result

A verdict was returned for the defendant. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

9-3

Length

10 days


#84141

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

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