Home › Crime, Courts & Public Safety › Courts
La Conchita survivor describes terror of landslide
Woman tells jury she never saw warnings posted at La Conchita
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from CourtsA survivor of the 2005 landslide in La Conchita said in court Thursday that she screamed for help after the disaster crushed her house and trapped her in darkness.
Speaking in Ventura County Superior Court, April Bernal was testifying in the wrongful-death and property-damage civil trial spurred by the Jan. 10, 2005, landslide that killed 10 people.
Earlier on the same day, she said, she was driving to her morning photography classes in Santa Barbara when two mud and dirt landslides occurred on Highway 101, less than a mile north of La Conchita.
The first landslide stopped traffic, and 15 minutes later the second one occurred, boxing in and trapping a cluster of northbound vehicles, including her own, she said.
Bernal, who was living at a La Conchita house owned by some friends, said emergency crews arrived and told her and the other motorists to walk to the gasoline station at La Conchita. Bernal said a firefighter told her that it was OK for her to go back to the La Conchita house.
Bernal said the house was owned by David and Cindy Klinger, who weren't living there at the time and who let her stay there while she attended Brooks Institute.
While in an upstairs living room at the Klingers' house, after making a few telephone calls, Bernal said: "I noticed the wall move. I thought it was an earthquake."
She said the landslide then moved the house, which was the third residence from the base of the mountain.
In a calm voice, she described mud, debris and a cabinet slamming into her and air being pushed out of her lungs. She said she believed she was going to die.
"I thought that was it," Bernal told jurors. "When I opened my eyes, it was pitch-black. I couldn't move."
After everything stopped moving, Bernal said, she needed to scream to get someone's attention. But, she said, everyone else who was trapped by the landslide was also screaming outside.
Bernal said she heard footsteps and a man's voice saying, "I hear you. I hear you. I'm coming."
He dug her out and carried her on his back to the gas station, she said. Her right leg was numb and her left leg was bleeding, she said.
About 15 minutes later, she was on her way by ambulance to a hospital emergency room, she said.
Under cross-examination by defense attorney Frank Sabaitis, who represents La Conchita Ranch Co., Bernal said she never asked the Klingers if it was safe to live at the house. She said she wasn't aware that the Klingers were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed after a 1995 landslide.
Bernal said she didn't remember talking to the Klingers about a wall constructed by the county, which plaintiffs in the current lawsuit contend was partly responsible for the 2005 disaster.
She said she was aware that a crushed house 150 feet from the Klingers' residence was destroyed by the 1995 landslide.
"I am sure someone had told me when I was young, I don't remember," Bernal said.
She said that on Jan. 9, 2005, the day before the La Conchita landslide, another landslide blocked a road in Castaic, where her parents lived. She said she arrived at the Klingers' house about 9 or 10 p.m. on Jan. 9.
She testified that she never saw the warning signs posted on structures in La Conchita. She said Cindy Klinger never talked to her about the warning sign at the Klingers' residence.
After the 1995 landslide, the county declared La Conchita a "geological hazard area," and structures had to post warning signs that also stated: "Enter at your own risk."
There are 36 plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, which claims that La Conchita Ranch Co. didn't build an adequate drainage system. Rain fell in La Conchita in the days preceding the landslide.
The county built a wall at the base of the mountain as a public improvement in 2000 after the 1995 landslide. Critics contend the wall dammed up the water until there was enough pressure from the water and hillside to cause a landslide.
Posted by bbofvta on July 4, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It sure sounds like willful blindness on the part of this lady. She ignored those signs that did not support her desire to live in the little commune next to the ocean.
Posted by ssakoian on July 4, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quite frankly, I don't think that the ranch is responsible, nor is the state. If you build under the edge of a cliff, chances are quite likely you will get debris. The people who own property there, and rent it out, without informing tenants, are also irresponsible. Finally, what "friend" would rent to someone, knowing full well the dangers of living there? To pay the mortgage? Maybe. And, if you can read, you need to be responsible. If the signs say "enter at your own risk," uhhhhh???
Posted by jbh50 on July 4, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, horrific, sad, scary...blah.blah.blah. It happened before and it'll happen again. The best way to avoid another horrific experience is not live there. Hard to work up sympathy for anyone knowingly living next to a time bomb.
How do you think a court or how a jury of your peers will decide?
Posted by myOpenyun on July 4, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When mother nature takes over no one is safe. Just like father time and life. With that said, I feel sorry for these people who lived there. Lifes were lost and that is never an ok thing. BUT people you knew that mountain came down before and you knew the possiblities of it coming down again. No it wouldnt have been easy to pack up and leave your life by the sea but the danger was there every morning when you looked at the mountain. Why now is it the cities fault? That mountain was there long before your lives. Everyone these days is law suit happy! There is reasons you pay life insurances, car insurances, rental,homeowner etc... but to point your finger at the conductor of the train when you were standing on the tracks is just wrong!
Posted by medaisy on July 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How sad that people insist on living in a danger zone only to blame someone else for their blatant disregard for their own safety. As for the mountain being saturated with water? Has anyone noticed the Pacific Ocean across the highway from La Conchita? I am praying that this lawsuit is tossed out of court. The rancher above La Conchita already settled with La Conchita residences once. A second time is not the ranches fault but those who insist on living under an umbrella of already proven danger. When will the residents who insist on living in a danger zone take responsiblity for their own actions?
Posted by Old_Fart on July 4, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gravity is responsible, and it always wins. Not the Ranch, not the County, Gravity.
The residents wont take responsibility, or they would have moved in the first place.
Posted by Freedom1 on July 4, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When you make an informed decision to put your life and the lives of your family members at risk you alone bear the responsibility for what happens. If you are incapable of reading the signs that warn you against living there, that's your problem. Not mine. I sincerely hope that the jury agrees.
Posted by retired_chief on July 4, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's balance the board out.
Anyone want to explain to us why they thought it would be okay to live there, and exactly how it's the county's fault that the landslide occured?
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 4, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
retired_chief - The answer is: these people were under the influence... of stupid. Now, thanks to some lawyers who see two deep pockets: The County of Ventura TAXPAYERS & the La Conchita Ranch Co., these La Conchita gamblers want "someone else" to pay for THEIR mistakes and stupidity. I still say any adult who kept their children in such a dangerous place should be held CRIMINALLY liable for Child Endangerment. The problem is, County officials should have completely condemned the properties and prohibited inhabitation. And, I don't believe Bernal did not see the warning signs; how convenient in a lawsuit brought by her friends. It will be interesting to see how liberal the jurors are that were picked for this case... it's easy to give money away when it's not yours.
Posted by abbyjacks on July 4, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So why doesn't she (April Bernal) file a lawsuit against David and Cindy Klinger ..... could it be because they don't have any $$$
I hope the jurors see right through this BS.
UNBELIEVABLE that this is even in our courts!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.