California Supreme Court -California Case Law

The Second Appellate Court Justices–Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert in their published July 28, 2010 Case Law decision put responsibility for this culvert as stated: “The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so.”

OK–Why is this OCSD pipe allowed in this drainage channel? Why is OCSD not Responsible?

Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision “Notice of Judgment” States: “Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was “static” for several years prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman’s determination that the primary culprit was POVE’s improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union’s operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County’s responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State’s right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance”

Why would the State of California use the State Highway for storm water retention?

Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and Thomas A Cregger, ESQ. (SBN 124402) both knew at the time of trial that both had knowledge of these Causation/Date of Stabilization-Photos and Documents,Whitnesses that they withheld from discovery and Judge Martin J. Tangeman! (DURING TRIAL.) Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP on July 30, 2008 provided Questionnaires. The color photos above where not provided until December 2, 2008 after trial as previously requested. Dean Benedix, County response No. 2–October 16, 2008 “Response: We will produce copies of the requested attachments and photographs per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $15.00.”
Lou Wheeler photos-Documents showing no flooding prior to 2004 –as viewed by Dean Benedix, Randy Ghezzi, Raleigh Greene, Max Keller, Cliff Howe, Michael Eckman per Dean Benedix statement: “I believe the attached photos are from Lois Wheeler of Oceano 481-5687 D Benedix 6/10/02”
Response No.3 from Dean Benedix After trial regarding documents wittheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! “We will produce copies of written communications and photos (in Color) Sent by oceano community members to Questa Engineering or the County of San Luis Obispo in regards to flooding in Oceano between 2000-2004 per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $10.00.”

San Luis Obispo County/Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 579 photo documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road shows Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and the flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 this created, as stated in the document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire! These color photos where provided December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Stabilization to this drainage system!

Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiff’s property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiff’s existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city’s liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would result in some damage to private property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) “The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency.” (Id. at pp. 362-363.)

The Second Appellate talks about this in Barrett v. County of Ventura–Filed 6/23/

Duration : 0:10:49

Read more about California Supreme Court -California Case Law