‘We Lost Big Time’ : Oxnard Dunes: Four homeowners are denied damages. Jury says developer not negligent in case involving oil waste dump.

What was once the biggest civil case in Ventura County history ended Friday with a jury’s decision that the developer of the Oxnard Dunes housing subdivision was not substantially negligent for selling property atop an abandoned oil waste dump.

After two weeks of deliberation, the jury refused to award damages to four of the five homeowners who had sued over the issue. A fifth plaintiff will be compensated for some loss of property value, to be determined later by jurors.

The verdict all but ends an eight-year battle between Oxnard Shores Co. and residents of Oxnard Dunes. Both sides agreed that the development firm came out the big winner in court.

“I think this closes a very long and arduous chapter in the litigation history of this county,” said an elated Christopher P. Bisgaard, the Los Angeles attorney who represented Oxnard Shores Co. and the numerous other defendants.

“We’re pleased with the results,” Bisgaard said. “We think that the evidence presented is consistent with the verdict.”

While acknowledging defeat, the plaintiffs said they still believe the development company deceived them about the property by failing to disclose its former use. They said an appeal would probably be too costly.

“We thought that the condition was obvious and at the very least affected property values,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Lawrence M. Schulner, who called the verdict “a disaster.”

“I do believe these people are concerned about the environment,” plaintiff Linda Paxton, 52, said of the jurors. “But they have also bought into the theory that the big businesses and the government are our protectors.”

The lawsuit was filed in 1987 by 175 residents of Oxnard Dunes after the discovery of the toxic waste dump under the 100-home development nine years ago.

All but the remaining five defendants--representing three families--accepted an undisclosed out-of court settlement last year.

The subdivision, off Harbor Boulevard about 1 1/2 miles north of Channel Islands Harbor, was used as a dump for oil field waste during the 1950s. The developer started selling lots there in 1964, and most of the homes were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

After remnants of the dump were discovered, state health officials conducted tests over five years and found no dangerous levels of contaminants. They gave the site a clean bill of health in 1990.

But some residents said their property had been devalued, and they worried about possible future illnesses.

Testimony began in October, and the jury got the case two weeks ago.

As verdicts were read Friday, the plaintiffs were initially encouraged as the defendants were found negligent of the first two of the 192 allegations against them.

*

But as the remaining counts were read, it quickly became clear that the jurors had exonerated Oxnard Shores and the numerous other defendants of the most serious allegations.

Several of the plaintiffs, who were seated together in the front row of the courtroom gallery, began to shed tears. A bailiff rushed over to hand Paxton a tissue.

As soon as the jury left the courtroom, plaintiff Steven Blanchard asked attorney Schulner for his interpretation of the verdict.

“We lost big time,” Schulner said plaintively.

A special trial will be held for Blanchard, the lone plaintiff who the jury thought deserved some damages. It said his property had lost value.

But the jury refused to award damages to the other four plaintiffs--Paul and Mary Null, Paxton, and Paxton’s mother, Helen Scarlett.

Attorney Bisgaard said the jury apparently exonerated the development company because its agents notified the city of Oxnard of the existence of the waste dump before selling any land on the property. The jury found the city of Oxnard negligent, but the city had already settled with the five plaintiffs and was not a defendant in the case.

Oxnard officials said they are under court order not to discuss the case until it is fully resolved.

The plaintiffs said that even though the jury did not believe they suffered losses, their properties are worthless.

“I’m 76 years old, and I’ve lost everything I’ve had,” said Scarlett, who lived in the subdivision from 1981 to 1984. “I just couldn’t believe anybody could vote against us. During this time I’ve even lost my husband to cancer. Whether it had anything to do with the Dunes, I don’t know.”

*

Blanchard, a 44-year-old project manager for the Navy, said he was “disappointed and surprised.”

Plaintiff Mary Null, 59, added: “I am really flabbergasted.”

But the plaintiffs said they are also glad that they took the matter to court.

Bisgaard said life is returning to normal at the Dunes, where several of the plaintiffs’ houses had been painted with signs that called attention to the presence of the toxic dump.

“The fact of the matter is, lenders are making loans in the Dunes,” Bisgaard said. “We have witnesses who enjoy living there.”