'He called their bluff': Avocado farmer teams up with corporate attorney wife after electrical line ignites his crops

Author image for Remy Millisky
Remy Millisky • Writer and Editor
Sep 3, 2023 5:00 PM EDT

This farmer may have lost his avocado farm, but he didn't give up. U/SomeoneYouDontKnow70 shared this tale of their brother in law's excellent way of getting what he deserved after losing his livelihood. 

Farming is one of the most difficult jobs out there, whether you're raising cattle or growing crops. As a farmer, you have to be dedicated to your crops year round, like this guy, who grew avocados in California. Unfortunately for him, nature decided to mess with his harvest. It seems like a freak accident caused power lines to fall on a fence around his crops. That fence caught on fire and ruined all the crops. Instead of giving up, this farmer decided he would just rebuild. But the electric company responsible for the fallen line were pretty adamant about denying any wrongdoing. If only they'd just worked with this farmer, maybe they wouldn't have had to go through all the hassle of a lawsuit. 

Check out the entire story below, as well as a few additional details the OP added to the post to flesh out the tale. Then, these people had cheating partners with the worst reasoning for their infidelity, like one woman who "cheated and... blamed the great American eclipse of August 2017." 

Add as a preferred
source on Google
Advertisement
  • 01
    Font - Won't compensate me for my fence? Then compensate me 100 times as much for my crops! M OC The malicious compliance in this story is not mine; it's my brother in law's. Some of the details may be slightly off, but the overall story is true.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 02
    Font - My brother in law grows avocados in California. Several years ago, a portion of his ranch was ravaged by a wildfire, or so he thought at first. When the smoke cleared, it became obvious that the fire was caused by an electrical line that was blown over by strong winds and had landed on his fence, catching it on fire.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 03
    Font - Since he had been planning on diversifying his crops anyway, he decided he'd simply replace his fence, replant, and move on. To that end, he called up the electric company that owned the downed line and asked them for about $10K in compensation to replace the fence that had been destroyed by their electrical line. They denied any and all culpability in the matter and told him that he should sue them if he didn't like it.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 04
    Font - What the electric company didn't realize was that my sister, his wife, works full time as a corporate attorney for one of the largest utilities in California, defending against cases just like this one. At first she was concerned that this utility was a subsidiary of her employer, in which case there would be a massive conflict of interest. Apparently legal departments frown on their employees when their husband is suing them. Go figure. Thankfully, after some investigation, she realized
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 05
    Font - My sister didn't represent her husband because she's typically on the other side of these cases, but she did advise him on everything he needed to bring to court to win his case, and she helped him find a very reputable lawyer with a solid record of winning cases like these. Not knowing what they were up against, the utility persisted in refusing to negotiate, hoping that by forcing my brother in law to trial, he would simply give up and go away.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 06
    Font - Spurred on by my sister's insistence that he had a solid case, he called their bluff and went to trial. As it turns out, California takes agricultural damage very seriously, and the court conducted its own independent investigation. It estimated the total damages at around $335,000, which is over 33 times as much as my brother in law had asked for initially.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 07
    Font - Furthermore, there is a law in California that awards triple damages in cases where agriculture is impacted, so the utility that had been unwilling to negotiate over $10K was now on the hook for over a million dollars in damages.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 08
    Font - When all was said and done, my brother in law confided to me that he would have gladly settled for the $10K in arbitration and that it would probably have taken him over a decade to even sell a million dollars worth of crops. The utility had to have their day in court, though.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 09
    Font - Update: So as I mentioned at the top of the story, and others have pointed out, I had some details wrong. I spoke to my sister last night, and I got a refresher. Rather than editing the original story, here is a list of things that I messed up in telling the story: 1. This happened about 10 years ago. 2. My brother in law's original settlement offer was 60K, not 10K. 3. While they initially thought that the downed power lines were owned by a utility (possibly the one my sister works for),
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 10
    Font - 4. The quarry didn't go to trial with this. They ultimately settled in excess of a million dollars, so there is no way for them to appeal this. However, as I stated earlier, the overall story holds true: 1. My brother in law initially offered to settle for tens of thousands of dollars, and they refused. 2. He lawyered up with my sister's assistance. My sister knew he was going to win this because as a defense attorney for a large utility in California, she'd been settling cases like this
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 11
    Font - 3. After my brother in law lawyered up, the quarry ended up having to pay out in excess of a million dollars to settle the case as opposed to the tens of thousands that he was initially willing to settle for. Here are a couple of commonly posted misconceptions that are flat out wrong:
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 12
    Font - Here are a couple of commonly posted misconceptions that are flat out wrong: 1. This was an act of god, so no one should have had to pay, and my brother in law should have just sucked it up. He didn't have to suck it up because the owners of power lines are responsible for ensuring that damage to the power lines doesn't impact nearby infrastructure. They're responsible for placing the lines in a manner that ensures they are a safe distance away from flammable objects. Failure to do that i
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 13
    Font - 2. My brother in law will never see a dime of that once the lawyers take their cut and the appeals are exhausted. The fact is that because they settled in arbitration, no appeal is possible. He received the majority of that money and used most of it to pay off the mortgage on the ranch and to repair the damage from the fire. He sank the rest of it into the sizeable mortgage on his house.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 14
    Rectangle - Frenetic_Platypus +2.1 2 & 47 More 16 So that's what they mean when they say you can save a lot of money if you stop toasting avocados. 15.5k Reply Share
    via u/Frenetic_Platypus
  • 15
    Font - Cpt_plainguy And this is still true, California does NOT f around when it comes to agricultural assets
    via u/Cpt_plainguy
  • 16
    Font - cellophaneflwr Honestly, this is one of those situations where it is better to do what your BIL did (take it to court and follow through with his wife's advice). Maybe that utility company will learn from their grave mistake and not treat others like this - at the very least I bet there are policies/procedures new for handling this type of situation.
    via u/cellophaneflwr
  • 17
    Font - QuestorTapes A lot of places have a policy of not settling any types of cases like that, simply to avoid having nuisance cases brought against them. Once word gets around that they never settle, most people with invalid claims just give up.
    via u/QuestorTapes
  • 18
    Font - Someone You Dont Know 70 OP Yes, but as my sister was telling me, if they had made the slightest effort at basic discovery, they would have realized that they were going to lose in court. Plus, California awards triple damages in agricultural cases to make it painful for industry to mess with farmers. $10K was hardly anything against the court costs and the chance at losing big. To this day she doesn't understand why they didn't settle immediately.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 19
    Font - Aitch-Kay she helped him find a very reputable lawyer with a solid record of winning cases like these. I always love referring a client to a previous opposing counsel. I know the client is going to get excellent representation because that attorney was a complete pain in my a
    via u/Aitch-Kay
  • 20
    Font - Wait, so did they pay him the million dollars in damages? 115 Reply Share SomeoneYou Dont Know70 OP I don't know how much of it went to him in the end. The lawyer takes a significant cut, but the amount he got was well in excess of the $10K he was asking for to begin with.
    via u/SomeoneYouDontKnow70
  • 21
    Font - MontanaPurpleMntns +1 Said utility has tried to do this with everyone who was damaged by their inaction/unwillingness to adequately maintain their electrical line. Kudos to BIL for being paid.
    via u/MontanaPurpleMntns
  • 22
    Font - Successful_Spread_53. I had a similar situation with our town council, although considerably less money,. A tree fell on our fence and wrecked it, I asked for 1/2 the repair cost, they said no, act of God and the like. I showed that the tree had termites and that they failed in their duty of care. Ended up they had to pay the full repair price.
    via u/Successful_Spread_53
  • 23
    Font - Me BoukuNola "IF you dOnT LikE iT, sUe US" No better feeling than slapping the confidence outta someone's mouth with a 300K lawsuit Imao
    via u/BoukuNola
  • 24
    Font - Assistantshrimp Super similar story near me. A farmer had a field bordered by the railroad and there was a drainage culvert that kept water off the field that ran underneath the rail. One year we had heavy rains and the field didn't drain like it was supposed to. Water stood in the field long enough that his crops drowned. After some investigating the farmer learned that the culvert had become plugged due to a cave in underneath the rail. He went to the railroad and told them about the co
    via u/Assistantshrimp
  • 25
    Font - told him he would just have to sue them for loss of crops whenever it flooded. He took the matter to his landlord (who owned the field) who was also the DA for the town. They sued and the railroad apparently never even showed up. He was awarded damages totaling the whole field (only about 20% of the field was lost) and ordered the railroad to fix the culvert anyways. They drug their feet again and the court fined them every day they didn't with the payout being split by the farmer and the
    via u/Assistantshrimp
  • 26
    Font - After nearly a year of this, the railroad finally replaced the culvert. The farmer likes to joke that he made more off the culvert being plugged than he could've with it being clear.
    via u/Assistantshrimp

Want More? Follow Us and Add Us as a Preferred Source on Google.

Tags

farming electrical fire vegetables farmer legal california electrical hazard lawsuits avocado lawsuit farm
Scroll Down For The Next Article