Home › News › County News
La Conchita civil trial opens with statements
Wrongful death, damage case stems from 2005 landslide
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
Engineers, hydrologists and other experts will testify in the wrongful death and property damage civil trial that was triggered by a 2005 landslide in La Conchita, but the case is really quite simple, a plaintiffs' lawyer told jurors Monday.
During opening statements in Ventura County Superior Court, attorney Anthony Murray said there will be complex testimony about the effect of water coming down a mountainside and landslides.
"But in the end you will find that this was rather a simple case," he said.
He said the "perfect recipe" for creating a landslide is putting a lot of water into an unstable slope.
The trial was triggered by an eight-second landslide that killed 10 people and destroyed 13 homes in the seaside community.
The trial could last up to four months and has a list of more than 200 potential witnesses, including experts, residents and county officials.
Nearly all of the plaintiffs were in court Monday and were introduced to the jury by Murray.
Accusations of poor drainage
Murray's firm, Loeb & Loeb of Los Angeles, is representing the plaintiffs. They include homeowners, residents of La Conchita, injured parties and the families who died.
Murray claims that La Conchita Ranch Co. saturated its orchards with water and didn't build an adequate drainage system.
This, he said, was coupled with the county building a retaining wall in 2000 at the base of Rincon Mountain.
Rainwater and irrigation water from the ranch was dammed up by the wall, he said. When the pressure got too great, the wall came tumbling down and onto the houses and streets, Murray told jurors.
He said the landslide couldn't have happened without the negligence of both the ranch company and Ventura County.
Attorney Richard E. Morton, who is representing the ranch company, described La Conchita to jurors as a "weakly cemented bunch of rocks" that was formed more than 40,000 years ago.
He said this 50-acre area has a history of landslides and mudslides. He said there have been many geologic and engineering studies as early the late 1800s.
"It is an area that is vulnerable to landslides and continues to be," Morton told jurors.
He detailed six landslides that have happened there through the years, including a 1909 landslide that killed four railroad workers.
Morton's law firm, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, which has offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Ana, is representing the ranch company.
Attorney Robert Ceccon of Los Angeles is representing the county and is expected to make his opening statements today.
Jury to decide negligence
The first witness is expected to testify today. A jury of 12 people and six alternate jurors will hear the case and decide only whether La Conchita Ranch Co. is negligent. Judge Vincent O'Neill, who is presiding over the trial, will decide whether the county is negligent.
During opening statements, Murray tried to portray David Orr, president of Vista La Conchita Corp. and the person who runs the ranch and reports to the corporation board, as a man who showed little interest.
Murray said Orr didn't do much after a March 4, 1995, landslide that destroyed or damaged seven houses.
The 700-acre ranch sits on a mountain terrace and grows lemons and avocados.
Murray said the ranch could have put in 30-inch drainage pipes, which could slow the flow of the water. But the ranch axed that plan and instead bulldozed "directly across the face" of the 1995 landslide to dig a dirt channel, which wasn't lined with a plastic substance to keep water out. Murray said it took "several thousand dollars" and "two hours" to do that work.
Morton told jurors that the ranch company did a lot to resolve the problem, including warning residents of its experts' finding when large cracks began to appear in 1994.
After the 1995 landslide, some residents sued the ranch, Morton said. He said some of the same people named as plaintiffs in the 1995 lawsuit, which was settled out of court, are now plaintiffs in the lawsuit involving the 2005 landslide. People who knew about the 1995 landslide also are plaintiffs in the current lawsuit, said Morton.
After 1995, the county declared La Conchita a "geological hazard area," and structures had to post warning signs that also stated: "Enter at your own risk."
The ranch company's net income from 1996 to 2004 was $1.4 million, and it spent $2.3 million working on the drainage and maintaining it and trying to figure out what caused the 1995 slide, according to Morton.
Posted by Ventura22 on June 24, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This lawsuit is the second most ridiculous thing I have ever seen/heard.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on June 24, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In Ventura County, we have the Colonia Chiques and we have Loeb & Loeb. Both are evil. I consider the thrust of Loeb & Loeb into deep pockets in this case to border on the criminal. I'd rather face off against the Chiques, because I believe the fight would be fairer. I pray that we have not seated an "OJ jury." I am sick of ludicrous payouts, with hundreds of millions ... in some cases billions ... of dollars going to attorneys. Ultimately, it is we who pay the price.
Posted by peter on June 24, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What another fiasco. Didn't the slippage occur in one of the wettest period of that winter. Torrential rain for days and days, even weeks and weeks. If this had ocurred in the summer the maybe a case. The run off was simply rain water that an unstable bank couldn't retain. Why can't sensible people see this?
Over 100 years ago the railroad built their lines away from the bank as their studies indicated that it may come down!Greedy landowners sold the land between the tracks and the unstable hillside in the 50's. That covers the last 100 years.
I would be way happier if the plaintiffs could collect every attorney fee from the defendents. Then over the next 20 years while they are paying that back they may figure out what this is about rather than hoping the plaintiffs will pay to get them off their backs!
Posted by peter on June 24, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
meant, ""
"I would be way happier if the DEFENDENTS could collect every attorney fee from the PLAINTIFFS"
Posted by dse_kpa on June 24, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Considering the geological make-up and history of La Conchita, I know I would not want to reside there. Ultimately, it was mother nature, and mother nature can be cruel. That was a heck of a lot of rain saturating the hillsides (and flooding other parts of CA, too).
We have to take some sort of responsibility of where we choose to live. In CA, we've got our earthquakes, Kansas: tornadoes, Florida: hurricanes, La conchita: landslides...
Posted by pfariseo on June 24, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I knew many people in La Conchita and the ones that were homeowners knew very well of the hazards of living there. They often bragged at how very low the price of their house was since they bought after the previous landslide to the one that took place in 1995. I always found it rediculous that they were ok with having bought a cheaper house than those compared to the outlying SAFE areas but under well-known and extremely dangerous conditions. They're going for the wallet of the ranchowners to do what, exactly?? Ease their guilt at being so incredibley arrogant in ignoring mother nature and the countless warnings that they received. None of this is meant to ignore how sorry we all are for loss of life but people must accept their own actions. If an adult wants to put themselves in danger, they should do so with the total intent of taking full responsibility for whatever may happen and children should not be part of their experiment. These ranchers did nothing wrong unless they single-handedly forced people to live underneath them in a geological hazard of an area!
Posted by Adam_Monroe on June 24, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This lawsuit is ridiculous....I hope the judge and jury recognize this and that the County wins by a "landslide..."
Those people have no business living there....please move and stop burdening the rest of us taxpayers...they are just as bad as the people that abuse the Medi-Cal system...
Posted by rcamacho on June 24, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a Joke..
Lets see: I KNOWINGLY buy a house that is built dead center on active earthquake fault, knowing very well if it slipped I put my kids and wife in harms way...
Then an earthquake hits and my house and life is destroyed.
who do I blame?
Posted by rcamacho on June 24, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a Joke..
Lets see: I KNOWINGLY buy a house that is built dead center on active earthquake fault, knowing very well if it slipped I put my kids and wife in harms way...
Then an earthquake hits and my house and life is destroyed.
who do I blame?
Posted by Dman on June 24, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They made $1.4 Million and spent $2.3 Million trying to solve this problem. What have the home owners and layers done?
Until we make the looser pay attorney fees in this country no good deed shall go unpunished.
Posted by SCfan01 on June 24, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok,
Yes they should drop the lawsuit, but where do you expect these people to go? Obviously, no one is going to buy their houses if they put them up for sale. So without money, where would you like them to move? As for being like the people who cheat the system with Medi Cal, I don't think so. Most of them are hardworking people.
Posted by abbyjacks on June 24, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My parents previously owned one of the homes that was destroyed (the home that killed the mother and her children). They sold it in the late 80's and the buyers had to sign a declaration acknowledging they knew about the unstable hillside and other dangers. I feel for everyones loss, but when do we stop with these frivolous lawsuits? Yes, it is sad when we lose loved ones but we have to take responsibility on ourself for the choices we make.
The entire La Conchita community knew of all the dangers that came along with living there.
No one forced them to stay.
Posted by pfariseo on June 24, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, "abbyjacks" - I forgot about the declarations. This is a very important point that will surely come up in trial. And "Oldoxn01" needs to be aware that every person in this country HAS A CHOICE to get out of a bad situation. What happened to harding working, level headed Americans that can figure out, on their own, how to afford a move when necessary. Some people have 2 or more jobs when things get really tough, instead of whining and suing people to get what they need. After the 2005 landslide residents of La Conchita were given zero interest loans and the use of shelters for unlimited amounts of time to get into a better situation. Guess how many came back that really didn't have to? If any of these people accept one dime of this bogus lawsuit, they are exactly like our local welfare frauds as far as I'm concerned. Looking for free ride at the cost of others is what its all about.
Posted by mtlmolina on June 24, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't the county offer a relocation incentive after the 1995 landslide? Does anyone know the details?
Posted by jeffreys49 on June 24, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I personally know a friend who almost lost everything in the first slide then when the second came it finished the job.... My sorrow only rests with those who lost there lives and the families who only have memories of what could have been. only a fool builds under a proven landslide area?? if you think that a cheap house with a view of the 101 and the ocean is worth being awakened in the middle of the night in the pouring rain to find a mountain coming down on you ,, I have to say the safety and security comes with a price and for any of the residents to think that the farmer is a fault what does he know you all want to blame him he grows avacados its odd that no one wanted to listen to geologists when they said this area will slide again. yet I drive by that area daily and its live as usual? do any other residents get to sue like those that live in the midwest or even the hollywood hills, what about Topanga canyon when it burns and floods you have all risked your lives for what a view or a status symbol?? one thing is for sure all the slimy lawyers looking for the big payoff will be the only one who will win in the end , To La Conchita residents Be safe , To the Farmer Good luck , To the Lawyers rot in hell
Posted by marketrealist on June 24, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question - if the County of Ventura is held liable, what will happen to the County's finances that are already threatened? Would the County have to declare bankruptcy and cut staff and services?
Posted by biorkman on June 24, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a joke and should be thrown out of court. Everyone always wants to point the finger when something bad happens. Give me a break.
Posted by jill on June 24, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, please! Leave the poor farmer alone. This is insane. Any idiot knows that the HUGE STORM is what saturated the mountain. Sue-happy people make me sick. I hope they lose big and are ordered to pay all the farmer's court cost, attorney's fees and pain and suffering for putting him through the stress of this lawsuit.
Anybody who would live there after the first landslide was a fool and put themselves at risk.
Posted by keepin_it_real on June 24, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jill=Good one!!!!!!
Ventura22=You stated this is the 2nd most ridiculous thing you ever heard? What is the 1st? Just curious. lol
It looks like we are all in agreement here. I hope the jury feels the same. These people knowlingly put themselves and their families in danger and they need to be responsible for their own actions.
This has happened more than once and it is no secret to anyone. I hope they loose big time.
Posted by alianne on June 24, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
people will try to do anything for a buck these days...this lawsuit is asinine!
Posted by caskier on June 25, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marketrealist - yes, the county would have to pay a settlement if found negligent. That means yours and my tax dollars will go to pay it. And likely have services cut as well.
My question is this - since the judge hearing this case is employed by the county, and is most likely a county resident as well, isn't he biased? The article says he will decide if the county was negligent. I'm surprised this wasn't tried elsewhere.
The good news is (I believe) that if the jury awards less than the last offer made by the defendants, the plaintiffs have to pay the defendants legal fess. Its a measure designed to thwart frivolous lawsuits. Makes plaintiffs think twice before suing - better to settle out of court, especially in this case.
Posted by noahsapothecary on June 25, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After the slide, I asked someone from La Conchita why in the world anyone would knowingly live at the base of a an obviously unstable hill. His response? "Where else can you own beachfront property in California for less than $400,00?"
Time to take responsibility for your own decisions people. Unless you have owned property there for a verrry long time, you were fully aware that there was a hazard. I'd also be willing to bet that these homes can't be insured. Another tip-off that maybe you shouldn't be living there!
You decided that the view, the beach, the cost or whatever was a worthwhile risk. Don't talk to me now about "where can they go, they can't sell their homes".
B Dawson
Ojai
Posted by BeaHappi on June 25, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A friend and I were just talking about the husband that lost his wife and three of his daughters in this landslide. So very, very sad...sad that any lives at all were lost.
However, it had been raining for 10 days...10 days! Knowing that the land was unstable and had slid before, why in the heck was anyone still there? I just don't get it.
This is obviously a very emotional subject and I do feel for the people who lost family members and their homes. But there are inherent risks with some places we choose to make our homes. At the base of a hillside would seem to be one of those places.
Posted by beachgirlovkatz on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is dorthy going to be sueing Oz next? People need to stop abusing the system, they knew why their houses were cheaper.
Posted by ca4ever on June 26, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They were all warned, they knew of the dangers. I knew someone that also lived there and they knew darn well it was coming down again. The Fire department even knocked on all of the doors and told them to leave. What were these people thinking that stayed and the ones who had the children. So sad, but ignorant
(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.