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.

Property Law
Inverse Condemnation
Dangerous Condition of Public Property

Ray M. Gerawan and Star R. Gerawan dba Gerawan Farming v. Alta Irrigation District

Published: Aug. 16, 1997 | Result Date: Jun. 12, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5331343 Verdict –  $1,220,930

Judge

Gene M. Gomes

Court

Fresno Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Timothy L. Thompson
(Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLC)


Defendant

R. Ernest Montanari

Carl L. Brown


Experts

Plaintiff

Dale Rush
(technical)

James G. Palmer
(technical)

Joseph M. Lord Jr.
(technical)

Defendant

David K. Smith
(technical)

James H. Wegley
(technical)

Julian W. Whaley
(technical)

Tony Correia
(technical)

Facts

In September 1994, water seepage from defendant Alta Irrigation District's canal destroyed plaintiffs Ray and Star Gerawan dba Gerawan Farming's plum tree orchard. The plaintiffs claimed that they replanted the orchard after the defendant indicated it would repair the canal. The defendant did not repair the problem and the new trees were damaged. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant based on inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property, nuisance and a petition for writ of mandate requiring the defendant to perform its mandatory duty under California Water Code º22098.

Settlement Discussions

Per the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $800,000, plus an agreement by the defendant irrigation district to either fix the canal or install an intercepter drain system to prevent the water seepage from continuing to damage the orchard, and the defendant made a settlement offer of $25,000. Per the defendant, the plaintiffs' demand was $1 million, including installation of a tile drain and a guarantee that the canal would not leak, plus attorney's fees in the amount of approximately $500,000, and the defendant made no offer in light of the demand.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed $1.5 million in damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years after the case was filed. Per the defendant, the defendant's former counsel was terminated after the close of discovery when the defendant learned of the former defense counsel's conflict of interest and the defendant's current defense counsel were retained to try this case. The defendant's motion for new trial was denied.

Deliberation

6 hours

Poll

9-3

Length

16 days


#99015

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

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