 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyer v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
hile one expert, Bruce Clark, did opine that the hillside would have failed even in the absence of the reservoir leakage, this testimony was hardly undisputed. Rather, other technical witnesses, including geotechnical engineer Gregory Axten and hydrogeologist Eric Hendrix, indicated that the leaking reservoir was a substantial factor in the slope failure. Indeed, Axten opined that without the water leakage from the reservoir, the slope would not have failed. In other words, Axten and Hendrix expressed opinions "excluding the probability that other forces alone produced the injury." (Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 559.)
There is substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the leakage of water from the reservoir was the cause of the landslide and that the evidence failed to establish the probability that other forces alone were the cause. When multiple witnesses opine that the landslide was caused by water leakage in the amount of 34 million gallons per year, it hardly seems probable that some other factor alone was in actuality the cause. Although one witness felt otherwise, it was up to the trier of fact to weigh the evidence, including the testimony of the witnesses. (Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1254-1255.)
(2) Motion for Non-suit
Anaheim also asserts that the trial court erred in denying its motion for non-suit based on the plaintiffs' purported failure to prove causation. We disagree. "`A defendant is entitled to a non-suit if the trial court determines that, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by plaintiff is insufficient to permit a jury to find in his favor. [Citation.] "In determining whether plaintiff's evidence is sufficient, the court may not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses. Instead, the evidence most favorable to plaintiff must be accepted as true and conflicting evidence must be disregarded. The court must give `to the plaintiff['s] evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, . . . indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in plaintiff' favor.'" [Citation.] . . . ' [Citation.]" (Adams v. City of Fremont (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 243, 262-263.) "In reviewing the denial of a motion for non-suit or directed verdict, appellate courts, like trial courts, must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff [Citation.] Reversal of the denial of a motion for non-suit or directed verdict is only proper when no substantial evidence exists tending to prove each element of the plaintiff's case." (Id. at p. 263.) As we have explained, substantial evidence supports the ruling of the trial court on causation.
(3) Allocation of Damages
Anaheim also argues that 396 and the plaintiffs failed to establish causation because they failed to allocate damages. Anaheim cites Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327, 372, wherein the California Supreme Court stated that "a plaintiff in inverse condemnation must establish the proportion of damage attributable to the public entity from which recovery was sought." Anaheim claims that sources of water other than the leaking reservoir contributed to the slope failure and since 396 and the plaintiffs did not show the extent to which those other sources contributed, judgment against Anaheim was error. As Anaheim sees it, 396 and the plaintiffs were required to quantify the amount of water contributed by other possible sources, such as rainfall, irrigation, and leaky pipes and swimming pools. Anaheim complains that 396 and the plaintiffs provided no evidence at all as to the amount of water contributed by such other sources, so i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|