Home › News › Local News
La Conchita legal hearings nearly over; trial could start soon
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe legal housekeeping is almost complete for a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit stemming from an eight-second landslide that killed 10 people and destroyed 13 homes in La Conchita, and a trial could begin next week.
Superior Court Judge Vincent O'Neill has been holding long hearings this week to determine what will be allowed as evidence and testimony during the trial.
Jury selection in the case involving the 2005 La Conchita landslide is expected to begin as early as Tuesday.
On Monday, O'Neill issued a gag order forbidding attorneys to talk to the media about the case.
The suit was filed by surviving family members and residents of the beachside community. Defendants include the county and La Conchita Ranch Co.
Earlier this year, the judge ruled the county could be sued only for property damages and was not liable for the deaths, which could have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars if a jury found the county culpable.
The suit claims a public wall built by the county after a La Conchita landslide in 1995 was designed to protect the homes. Instead, when the hillside fell again a decade later, the wall redirected tons of sliding earth into the homes of the victims, the suit claims. The hill collapsed Jan. 10, 2005, after several days of heavy rain.
The county contends the wall, only 5 feet tall in some places, was never designed to hold back tons of fast-moving earth. Rather, it was built to keep stray debris off a road at the base of the hill, the county says.
Wrongful death, personal injury and property damage lawsuits are still pending against the La Conchita Ranch Co., which owns land above the bluff that gave way. Residents are arguing the ranch saturated the hillside through irrigation.
In February, O'Neill dismissed a second set of lawsuits filed on behalf of 57 La Conchita residents who claimed they suffered emotional distress or loss of property value because of the slide. The dismissal came when the attorney representing those residents quit and another lawyer could not be found to take the cases.
After the 1995 landslide, which destroyed nine homes and damaged others, residents also sued the ranch. In 1999, a judge ruled that the ranch's watering atop a hill was not a significant factor in causing that slide.
Posted by Old_Fart on June 13, 2008 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a comet hits Punta Gorda, who will they sue then?
The law of gravity always wins.
I feel sorry for the folks and their losses, losing my family would devastate me, but that area needs to be cleared out to prevent future tragedies.
Posted by OxnardNative on June 13, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"HERE, HERE" Old_Fart, I could not agree with anyone more. I am sorry for these folks and their loss too, but they need to quit wasting time and taxpayers (MY) money trying to prosper from their losses. THEY CHOSE TO LIVE THERE and if they did not know the risks involved, SHAME ON THEM. If they win they win TAXPAYERS MONEY, MY MONEY and what happened is NOT MY FAULT!!!
Posted by UncleRico on June 13, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You mean that after all this time, all the La Conchita plaintiffs had to do was consult with OxnardNative to find whether their legal claims were valid or not? Boy, how silly were they to utilize the judicial branch of government?
Thanks for playing judge, jury and executioner Oxnard.
Posted by cowchip on June 13, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd love to meet the engineer who could design a wall great enough to hold back TONS of FAST MOVING earth. Good luck on this one, La Conchita...you might just want to sue God, since this was an act of His and there is nobody who could have stopped it.
Posted by OxnardNative on June 13, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's MY OPINION UncleRico. I am no judge, if I was I'd have thrown this out long ago. I catch your drift, but it will be your tax dollars too that pay restitution if you pay any locally! Maybe they can just squeeze some restitution out of Mother Nature instead? No one MADE THEM live there, it was their choice.
Posted by RedTail on June 13, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you Oxnardnative.
This is an interesting report from a geologist who studied the area:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/projec...
What is interesting in the report is that at the bottom it says that after a trial in the 1990s, "it was the ruling by the judge that this case can never again be brought against the ranch owners, based on the premise that the irrigation caused the landslide."
I'm curious why the homeowners again are allowed to go after the ranch owners?
I honestly don't know what the homeowners there expect. You live in a geologically active area with a history of slides next to the ocean and expect county officials to be able to control it?
Posted by UncleRico on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard- I realize that is your opinion. At the end of the day, however, your opinion may be validated or it may not be. Its a bit premature from a legal standpoint.
Posted by ridgewalker101 on June 13, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This hill had already slid a years earlier and destroyed several homes. Yet people kept living right below it. Even as heavy rains kept soaking the area. Look at that whole mountain range, it is totally unstable. There are huge slides all up and down it. It's too bad children had to die because of irresponsible slow learner parents.
Posted by butterflygone on June 13, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the county should be held somewhat liable for allowing people to live there. There was a prior landslide. They built a wall so they knew it would happen again. Both the county AND the residents are at fault. The residents chose to continue living there after the 1st landslide. The county should pay to help relocate the existing residents and give some money to the smarter ones who moved away. The county should also close off that part of La Conchita as a residential area. I feel badly for the people who lost their homes and family members. Especially the man who lost his wife and daughters. That was so sad.
Posted by Freedom1 on June 13, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Couldn't agree more "Old Fart." These folks didn't want to give up their ocean view and beach access knowing the dangers and now the taxpayers are supposed to help them out. Nonsense! The county tried to evict them and the "Governator" stopped them. Maybe he would like to pick up the tab?
Posted by mother on July 5, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Losing your home is a terrible thing but almost becomes meaningless when compared to losing a life. The tragedy here lies in the loss of life. La Conchita paid out 20 million dollars in taxes in the ten years between the two landslides. The contractor's estimate to terrace and shore up the hill in 1995 was 19 million. What did La Conchita's tax money go to? Emergency protection? That day, the lives of the people of La Conchita were not even designated as something to protect. The only exit to La Conchita was blocked by police from 8 in the morning until minutes after the slide. Residents were told all day to return to their homes by county workers- including the 10 that died in their homes. When evacuation busses arrived shortly before the landslide, they were for the stranded motorists. What value do we place on life? Aren't tax dollars supposed to go to collectively protect life? Isn't that the primary mandate of a society? Most of those that died, tried to leave that day but were not allowed to. Nobody is crying about the crushed houses. Shouldn't we figure out the truth about why 10 people, including three little girls, died that day, and then honor them by making sure that no one else dies in a disaster simply because they get lost in the shuffle? Their lives were worth at least that.
(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.