Home › News › Local News
Jurors visit La Conchita before trial on mudslide
Download this story as a podcast!
James Glover II / Star staff On Friday, 18 jurors, including six alternate jurors, visit La Conchita, where a landslide killed 10 people and destroyed 13 homes on Jan. 10, 2005.
James Glover II / Star staff Judge, jurors, lawyers and the bailiff walk in La Conchita on Friday after they were taken by shuttle bus to the community, about 12 miles from the courthouse.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsOn Friday, 18 jurors, including six alternate jurors, visited the seaside hamlet in western Ventura County where the slide occurred on Jan. 10, 2005.
Ventura County Superior Court Judge Vincent O'Neill, lawyers and the courtroom bailiff accompanied the jurors, who walked quietly through the neighborhood after they were transported by shuttle bus to the community, about 12 miles from the courthouse.
Many in the group, including O'Neill, wore loose-fitting clothing and hats to ward off the hot sun. Instead of his courtroom robes, the judge wore a light blue shirt and a tan hat with a wide brim.
The judge has ordered lawyers to refrain from speaking to reporters about the case.
At the town's only fruit stand on Santa Barbara Avenue, a shirtless Michael Van Birk of Los Angeles munched on potato chips and said he thought the people who got off the shuttle bus were tourists.
Van Birk, who was on vacation, didn't have much sympathy for residents who built houses next to the mountainside and continued living there after a 1995 mudslide.
"Plus, weren't they warned?" he said.
More than 200 witnesses are expected to testify during the trial, which involves 36 plaintiffs and could last as long as four months, according to some estimates.
The plaintiffs include homeowners, residents of La Conchita, injured parties and the families of those who died in the landslide, which occurred at 12:30 p.m. after days of rain.
Defendants include the County of Ventura and La Conchita Ranch Co.
John Leis, a La Conchita resident for nine years, said when it rains heavily for one or two days, he leaves La Conchita.
"I like to get in my motor home, run away and hide," he said, adding that he was at home when the 2005 mudslide occurred. "Yeah, run and hide," he repeated.
Leis didn't seem to pay too much attention to the jurors going down his streets. After all, he said, right after the landslide the town became a "tourist attraction" with "lookie loos" driving up and down the streets, Leis said.
"We still have people drive up here, looking at the community," he said.
Leis said he isn't involved in the lawsuit and doesn't believe in suing people. He said he doesn't blame the avocado grower who is accused of heavily watering his trees and allegedly causing or contributing to the collapse of the mountainside.
Leis said the county must do something to help the residents, such as approving terracing of the mountainside.
He said the county took a long time to erect a retainer wall in 2003 at the base of Rincon Mountain after the March 1995 mudslide, which buried or damaged seven homes. No one was injured.
Leis said people can leave if they want to, but most stay because it is home.
"I love it here. The weather is great, the people are nice," he said. "My only complaint is getting in and out (on Highway 101), especially on the weekends."
Posted by medaisy on June 21, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a tragedy that residents died in the mudslide but common sense warned those who continued to live there of the danger of the mountain sliding a second time. No matter how beautiful or serene a location is; danger is danger. As for the mountain being "over saturated" with water; HELLO the Pacific Ocean is but a few feet away. The blame game is always a reason for not using common sense, paying attention to a history of a previous slide and responsibility for your own choices.
Posted by keepin_it_real on June 21, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel bad as well for the damage and injuries, loss of life and homes. It is horrible!!!!
It is the same old thing as living in the hills of Malibu. We all know there is fire danger and mudslides there too, but people still choose to live there. There are also people living on the beaches with their homes practically pertruding over the water then want to sue someone when their home washes into the ocean.
If you live somewhere where there is a potential danger and you are aware of this danger, you can't blame someone else when something happens.
Again, this is a terrible story and my heartfelt condolences go out to every person who lost their home and lives due to this terrible tragedy.
Posted by THX1138 on June 21, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Generally, homebuyers need to take responsibility for their decisions & actions.
If the county is found to be negligent and a settlement is awarded; the county employees won't be penalized, the taxpayers will foot the bill. Is that fair, I think not.
Posted by keepin_it_real on June 21, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
THX1138-Thanks, you are so right. We will be paying the price for a conscious decision these guys made to live there and staying in an area they knew was dangerous. I am sorry that happened but I am not too happy knowing I may be footing the bill for something they knowingly did. It is not fair.
When you put a sign on the beach saying dangerous, no swimming, and you go swimming, is it right to sue the county because you got hurt or someone died? I don't think so. It is the same thing.
Posted by Freedom1 on June 21, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I sincerely hope that the jurors in this case listen to all the testimony - not just that of the plantiffs. These folks had been warned of the dangers, seen it once already and still choose to expose themselves and their children to the danger and now want the taxpayers to pay them for their own negligence. If they receive any compensation at all (and I don't mean what they think their homes are worth, since they are literally worthless) then the land should be confiscated and they should be evicted as part of the any agreement that is reached and the land left vacant. This has gone on far too long.
Posted by tsetsaf on June 21, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Next time there is an earthquake I am going to sue the county for not protecting me too. They know one will happen yet they have failed to take preventative actions to stop the ground from moving!
This is a joke. Sorry for the loss of life but it was not someone else's fault.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on June 21, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The side of that hill is the site of an ancient landslide. I understood that, even as a child growing up here. From people who build on forested mountains and get burned out to those who build in flood plains and are flooded out ambulance chasing lawyers and their clients are all looking for that lottery payout ... which comes on the backs of those of us who fund the government with our taxes. The sad thing is ... we have too many "OJ" juries and agenda driven Federal judges.
Posted by cowchip on June 21, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These forums are really interesting because I have yet to see an argument as to why the La Conchitan's are due a settlement. Most all of the posts are with regard to the fact that these people have no case and don't deserve to win one because they choose to live within a proven hazardous area. It would be enlightening to hear from someone on that side of the fence, or retaining wall, if you will. If this lawsuit is won by these people, I fear it will set a standard whereby people will feel they can sue over acts of God and perhaps have a chance of actually winning!
Posted by Just_wondering on June 21, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cowchip - It's been 4 hours since your post asking for someone to give an arguement on why they should win...I think that may be you answer...there is no arguement in favor. They chose to live there after he first slide (at least in our recollection) and after the slide in the same vacinity in 1909. I am sorry that this happened to those families, but it was there responsibility to make sure they were safe. they were aware of the dangers and have no one to blame but themselves. I have a very hard time mustering up sympathy for those who put themselves in those situations (people who build homes on the beach, in the mountains were fires have already burned in recent memory, such as Dos Vientos, etc.)
Posted by RedTail on June 22, 2008 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's an interesting article in the LA Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/...
Apparently some of the homeowners there were already paid money from the rancher above:
"But rather than defend itself in court, the company – which has operated a citrus and avocado farm on a plateau above the community since 1975 – paid tens of millions of dollars to 112 neighbors as part of a confidential settlement in 1997.
The terms were not disclosed, but landslide lawyers said residents probably waived their legal right – as well as those of anyone who bought property from them – to sue the ranch for any further property damage caused by landslides."
How many times can people sue the same entity for the same thing?
(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.