Youngman v. Dept. of Transportation

Filed 5/12/06 Youngman v. Dept. of Transportation CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

In this inverse condemnation action, the trial court found the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans or State) strictly liable because highway improvements designed to reduce erosion flooded plaintiff Jay H. Youngman's house. The trial court alternatively found that if a reasonableness standard applied, the State acted unreasonably.

On appeal the State argues a reasonableness standard should apply and that the State acted reasonably because it merely slightly increased the total amount of surface runoff in the watershed; even if liable, it should be liable only for its percentage of land within the watershed, or less than two percent of Youngman's damages.

The State's arguments are based on an inappropriate version of the facts. The trial was largely a battle of experts: Two experts testified the improvements concentrated surface waters from the watershed and diverted them toward Youngman's property, which would not have flooded in the absence of such diversion; the State's experts testified to the contrary, that the improvements did not alter the flow of surface waters. The trial court accepted the opinions of Youngman's experts and on appeal the State makes no effort to show that those opinions lacked foundation; indeed, the State fails to mention one opinion. Because the State has not presented a fair statement of facts, in accordance with normal appellate rules, we deem forfeited any evidentiary challenges the State may have intended to make, and we shall presume the project diverted water to Youngman's house, which would not otherwise have flooded.

We shall conclude that the facts--viewed in Youngman's favor--call for application of strict liability because it is unfair to compel Youngman to bear the cost of a project which benefits the public at large, and which directly caused damages peculiar to him. We shall reject the apportionment argument because this is not a case where liability is predicated on increasing surface runoff in a small section of the watershed, but is based on the act of diverting all of the watershed runoff toward Youngman's land: That was done solely by the State, which is entirely liable. We shall affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 18, 1997, Youngman sued the State and El Dorado County (County), alleging road projects caused water to damage his house. The County settled and Youngman filed an amended complaint in February 1999. The issue of inverse condemnation liability was bifurcated.

After the trial court found the State liable, the parties stipulated to the amount of damages and a judgment was entered, from which this appeal was timely taken.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The trial court issued a lengthy statement of decision that largely consists of the trial court's narrative summary of testimony, rather than a concise explanation of â€