Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 26 February 1952
• Citation: 240 P.2d 993,109 Cal.App.2d 440
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: NATURAL SODA PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. Civ. 14700.

Page 993

240 P.2d 993

109 Cal.App.2d 440

NATURAL SODA PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Civ. 14700.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Feb. 26, 1952.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1952.

Hearing Denied April 24, 1952.

Kenneth Ferguson, San Francisco, Donahue, Richards, Rowell & Gallagher, Oakland, Burdette J. Daniels, Los Angeles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty. of City of Los Angeles, Gilmore Tillman, Chief Asst. City Atty. for Water & Power, and Rex B. Goodcell, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, for defendants-appellants.

NOURSE, Presiding Justice.

This case revolves around a flooding of Owens Lake during the period December, 1937 to April, 1939. A previous action was brought by plaintiff as a result of a similar flooding in early 1937, in which case the Supreme Court considered the relationship of defendants' Owens Valley aqueduct system and Owens Lake. Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.2d 193, 143 P.2d 12. The physical situation in this case is the same as there presented.

In 1913 the defendants completed their aqueduct to Owens Valley and, from 1919 to 1937, diverted into it virtually all the flow of the Owens River, which formerly emptied into Owens Lake, a body of salt water without outlet. As a result the lake dried up making available its subsurface brines which were valuable for use in the production of soda products. Plaintiff leased mineral rights in the dry lake bed from the State of California and acquired or built on the shore of the lake two plants for use in its manfacturing process.

Plaintiff's continued operations were dependent on the absence of any substantial flow of Owens River waters into the lake. The extent of the flow was determined primarily by the manner in which defendants operated their aqueduct system which consisted of a vast network of reservoirs, dams, canals, ditches, wells, pumps and spreading grounds. The water which comes within the perimeter of defendants' aqueduct system can be diverted onto two spreading areas in Owens Valley; taken into storage in defendants' reservoirs; transported out of the valley in the aqueduct proper, or diverted into Owens Lake. That part of the total water supply which is transported out of the valley in the aqueduct proper can be used consumptively in the City of Los Angeles; spread onto two lower spreading grounds, or spilled into the Los Angeles or Santa Clara Rivers.

Between the period February 6, 1937 and July 1, 1937, defendants intermittently diverted large amounts of water into Owens Lake, thereby flooding the lake bed to a depth of three or four feet, thus making plaintiff's lake bed properties inaccessible, and forcing a suspension of plaintiff's operations until October, 1937.

Plaintiff brought an action for the injuries to its property and loss of profits resulting from this flooding of 1937 and was awarded damages in the amount of $153,578.85. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that defendants had, by their long continued diversion of water from Owens River, obligated themselves to continue that diversion within the reasonable capacity of its aqueduct system for the benefit of plaintiff. Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra. That principle, in part, governs the disposition of this case.

Plaintiff was again forced to suspend operations in December, 1937, when defendants diverted additional water into the lake. These diversions continued intermittently until May, 1939, and the property remained inaccessible until late in 1940, when the lake again became dry and plaintiff resumed operations. During this period of flooding defendants diverted altogether approximately 306,000 acre feet of water into the lake.

On June 9, 1938, plaintiff filed with the defendants a claim for $157,859.21 for the damages resulting to it during the period December, 1937, through June 7, 1938, and on June 23, 1940, plaintiff filed with the defendants another claim for $597,564.87 for the damages resulting to it during the period June 7, 1938, through June 21, 1940. Upon rejection of these claims plaintiff filed two actions for damages, one for each of the claims. The actions were transferred to Alameda County and consolidated for trial. By the complaints plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligent in not operating their aqueduct system to its reasonable capacity, and that defendants were negligent in not providing additional headwater surface storage facilities. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that during the period December, 1937, to April, 1939, only 50,000 acre feet of water would have been diverted into Owens Lake had defendants operated their then existing aqueduct facilities to their reasonable capacity, and that defendants were not negligent in failing to provide additional headwater surface storage facilities for the accommodation of the above mentioned 50,000 acre feet. Judgment was entered awarding plaintiff $288,851.29. Cross-appeals have been taken from this judgment.

We will first consider defendants' appeal. Defendants first contend that the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the trial court's finding that defendants failed to operate their aqueduct system to its reasonable capacity.

It has long been recognized that expert testimony is not only proper but also virtually indispensable in cases where the relation between the facts and results may be understood only by those with special skill or training. People v. Ellis, 188 Cal. 682, 206 P.2d 753; Vallejo & N. R. Co. v. Reed Orchard Co., 169 Cal. 545, 147 P. 238; Campbell v. Fong Wan, 60 Cal.App.2d 553, 141 P.2d 43. It has also been held that an expert's opinion may be based on a hypothetical question, provided, of course, that the question itself is based upon the testimony or other competent evidence sufficient to prove the facts supposed. Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257, 104 P. 6; Perkins v. Sunset Tel. and Tel. Co., 155 Cal. 712, 103 P. 190; Martindale v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Cal.App.2d 400, 201 P.2d 48. And it is for the trial court to determine the weight to be given such testimony. Arais v. Kalensnikoff, 10 Cal.2d 428, 74 P.2d 1043, 115 A.L.R. 163; Kershaw v. Tilbury, 214 Cal. 679, 8 P.2d 109; Helbing v. Helbing, 89 Cal.App.2d 224, 200 P.2d 560; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 64 Cal.App.2d 162, 148 P.2d 95.

In the present case two civil engineers whose backgrounds showed each to have spent in excess of thirty years investigating water supply and conservation problems testified in response to a hypothetical question which accurately embraced the facts of the case as proved by prior testimony and exhibits, that it was poor engineering practice on defendants' part to spill water into the Owens Lake during the period December, 1937, to April, 1939. The record clearly shows that these opinions were arrived at after many days of concentrated study of the circumstances as documented by a multitude of graphs, charts and miscellaneous hydrographic data which were in the chest of evidence and available to the trial court as an aid in reaching its decision. The trial court obviously found the experts' opinions satisfactory and reliable, and this court is concluded thereby.

Defendants also urge that plaintiff's claims were not filed within the time and manner prescribed by law.

Section 376 of the Charter of Los Angeles provides that, 'No suit shall be brought on any claim for money or damages against the City of Los Angeles, or any officer or board of the city, until a demand for the same has been presented, as herein provided, and rejected in whole or in part. * * * Except in those cases where a shorter period of time is otherwise provided by law, all claims for damages against the city must be presented within six (6) months after the occurrence from which the damages arose * * *.' Stats....