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.

Torts
Trespass
Nuisance

Koves-Newlan, LLC v. The Napa Valley Wine Train Inc.

Published: Mar. 15, 2005 | Result Date: Dec. 23, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2623782 Verdict –  $1,364,800

Judge

Raymond A. Guadagni

Court

Napa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Margaret M. Farley


Defendant

Paul M. Stoychoff


Experts

Plaintiff

Michael Sterling
(technical)

Charles P. Semple
(technical)

Michael I. Brooks
(technical)

Caroline Barnes
(technical)

Richard J. Van Bruggen
(technical)

Defendant

Joseph Countryman
(technical)

Brian J. Jacobs
(technical)

Ronald G. Garland
(technical)

Conrad Bridges
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Koves-Newlan LLC is a winery and owner of residential property adjacent to Dry Creek in Napa. East of the winery is a railroad trestle that crosses Dry Creek. The trestle is owned and maintained by defendant The Napa Valley Wine Train Inc. In December 2002, a neighbor advised the defendant that additional debris was building up under the trestle and needed to be cleaned. Two weeks later, the plaintiff claimed the additional debris blocked the flow of water in the creek, causing a diversion of water onto the winery property. The water flooded the winery's storage facility, retail room, vineyard and the lower floor of the estate house.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a demand of $1.2 million; defendant's offer was $400,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought damages for loss of retail merchandise, aged wine in barrels, bottled wine, the winery's library, empty barrels, bottling supplies and equipment, loss of a cabernet franc vineyard, the contents of the estate house and winery building, business loss and a loss of property value due to the flooding. The defendant disputed the value of the lost wine and the loss of property value. It maintained that some of the repairs caused a betterment of the property thereby reducing some of the damages actually sustained.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $1,364,800 in damages. Defense on trespass and nuisance causes of action.

Deliberation

2.5 days

Poll

12-0 (negligence and premises liability), 11-1 (damages)

Length

14 days


#86884

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

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