California Court of Appeal

In an action against defendant, plaintiff's upslope neighbor, for property damages after a severe rainstorm flooded plaintiff's property with water, mud, and debris over the course of several hours, which plaintiff contends originated from defendant's property, the jury's verdict which found in favor of plaintiff but then nullified the award based on defendant's commercial agricultural activity defense under the "Right to Farm Act," is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed defendant to amend her answer to assert the defense under the Right to Farm Act; but 2) the issue of whether the defense applied in this case should have been teed-up first in the special verdict form before the jury reached the issue of negligence/comparative fault of the parties because that verdict, as it now stands, is hopelessly inconsistent; and 3) on remand, the activity and/or operations alleged to be the nuisance and the nuisance itself should be defined for the jury in order for it to determine whether such activity or operations was an "agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenance thereof" within the meaning of the Right to Farm Act.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/16/2014
• Published 05/16/2014

Judges

• BENKE

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel