Rainbow Farms v. Natomas Cent Mut. Water
Plaintiffs Rainbow Farms, Huntley Farming, Christy Vantress Farming, Heryford Family Farms, and JWT Corp. (collectively, Rainbow) sought to grow rice on farm lands leased from Robert Leal, who is not a party to this lawsuit. In 2004, Rainbow submitted an application to receive Leals share of water from defendant Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Central). Water delivery was delayed when a power transformer of nonparty Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) broke down. After a poor crop resulted, Rainbow sued Natomas Central for failing to seek an alternate way to deliver irrigation water more quickly. A jury found that Rainbow was not bound by the waiver of the right to sue for delayed delivery of water set forth in Natomas Centrals bylaws. The jury also found Rainbow had assumed the risk of crop failure as an inherent risk of farming. Although judgment was entered in Natomas Centrals favor, the trial court nonetheless granted Natomas Centrals motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on grounds that Rainbow was bound by the bylaws waiver provisions.
On appeal, Rainbow argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the waiver/release provisions of Natomas Centrals bylaws barred suit, and that the jury instructions misstated the law on assumption of risk. Court shall affirm.
Comments on Rainbow Farms v. Natomas Cent Mut. Water