Southern California Gas Company v. Southern California Edison Company
Published: Dec. 5, 1998 | Result Date: Aug. 24, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GC017862 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central West
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Douglas Bennett
(technical)
Charles H. Avery
(technical)
Defendant
Phillip L. Wheeler
(technical)
Steven B. Graff-Radford
(technical)
Facts
On July 23, 1995, plaintiff Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) began receiving complaints from customers about a lack of natural gas for their residences and businesses. A short time earlier in the day, at 9:02 a.m., a short circuit occurred on an Edison Company power pole in the immediate area of the gas outages. Investigation of SoCalGas' customer complaints showed that water was present in large quantities in the natural gas piping. After several days, SoCalGas discovered that water from a water line was entering into SoCalGas natural gas lines in the alley behind a business operated at 515 South Myrtle Ave, Monrovia. SoCalGas also learned that at 9:02 a.m. on July 23, 1995, a surge of electrical current escaped from an Edison power pole also located in the alley to the rear of the business in the 500 block of South Myrtle Ave. about 40-50 feet from the location of the source of the water leak. The source of water was determined to be a water line servicing 515 South Myrtle Ave. The water line crossed underneath and at right angles to the gas line and was touching the gas line prior to the electrical occurrence. The ground fault current caused an arc and burned a hole in both the gas and water lines. By the time the source of water was discovered about noon on July 26, thousands of gallons of water had entered into SoCalGas' natural gas lines, interrupting service to approximately 300 residential customers and number of business customers. Thousands of man hours of company labor were required to restore service to SoCalGas' customers at a cost of $277,007. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover the costs of repair based on negligence and nuisance theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $___________. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $_____________ .
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $277,000 in damages.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and 10 months after the case was filed. An arbitration held on Dec. 13, 1997, before attorney William J. O'Brien, of Christie, Parker & Hale, resulted in a defense award. The plaintiff requested a trial de novo.
Deliberation
one day
Poll
9-3
Length
3½ days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390