Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 20SMCV01196, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV01196    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from property damage connected to work performed by Defendant Southern California Edison’s (“SCE’s”) outside contractor, Defendant Edison Power Constructors, Inc. (“EPC”).  While replacing a deteriorated SCE utility pole on Topanga Canyon Boulevard, EPC inadvertently drilled into an underground drainage culvert owned by Defendant Caltrans, and then set the replacement pole into the broken pipe.  When EPC discovered the damage, it attempted to stabilize the pole with foam and gravel, which further congested the culvert.  During a subsequent rainstorm, the blockage to the culvert caused a mudslide on Plaintiff William Howell’s property located downgradient from the damaged pipe. 

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for jury view of the property.  Plaintiff argues that a jury view would aid the jury in deciding the case as it will be critical for the jury to understand the layout of the property and see for themselves what the area and slopes look like.  Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Caltrans to remove the sandbags, scaffolding and visqueen covering the sloped areas in advance of the jury view.   

LEGAL STANDARD

Code Civ. Proc. § 651 provides:

(a) On its own motion or on the motion of a party, where the court finds that such a view would be proper and would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case, the court may order a view of any of the following:

(1) The property which is the subject of litigation.

(2) The place where any relevant event occurred.

(3) Any object, demonstration, or experiment, a view of which is relevant and admissible in evidence in the case and which cannot with reasonable convenience be viewed in the courtroom.

(b) On such occasion, the entire court, including the judge, jury, if any, court reporter, if any, and any necessary officers, shall proceed to the place, property, object, demonstration, or experiment to be viewed. The court shall be in session throughout the view. At the view, the court may permit testimony of witnesses. The proceedings at the view shall be recorded to the same extent as the proceedings in the courtroom.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff contends that a jury view of the property will be helpful.  According to Plaintiff, it will benefit the jury to see the layout of the property including relative positions of the driveway, slopes and culvert, how the culvert drains onto the slopes, etc.  Plaintiff also argues there is no risk of prejudice due to changed conditions because the continuing degradation of the slope is one of the key issues the jury will need to consider in determining causation and damages. 

Defendants Southern California Edison (“SCE”) and Caltrans argue that the condition of the slopes at the time of the flooding/culvert incident is different from what it is now.  But Defendants fail to address Plaintiff’s argument that the continuing degradation of the slope is one of the issues in the determination of causation and damages. 

Notwithstanding, the Court agrees with Defendants that a site visit is unnecessary where there is extensive evidence including photographs, videotapes, animations, surveys, geological studies, topographic data, reports and diagrams that document the Property and the alleged damage to it.  The jury can easily understand the “dynamics and layout of the property” by viewing this evidence. 

The Court must take into account the availability of this evidence when considering the cost and time it would take to transport all the jurors, attorneys, parties and court personnel to the site and back.  Defendant Caltrans also points out Plaintiff would have Caltrans remove the visqueen and sandbag for the jury view, which Caltrans would then have to put back on.  Caltrans represents it would take a two to three man crew about a half a day to remove and presumably the same amount of time to put back on.  Plaintiff has not offered to reimburse Caltrans for any of these costs.

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for jury view of the property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2024                                                   ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court