When a windstorm toppled a power line and set a fence and a portion of an avocado ranch ablaze, the owner called the power company asking for a modest settlement to fix the damage. The company’s answer was blunt: take it or sue.
What followed was a textbook case of “you should’ve taken the deal.” With legal coaching from his sister (a utility-defense attorney who flipped roles to help her family), the grower pushed the case into arbitration.
The result? A settlement that dwarfed the original offer, turning a fight over a fence into a multimillion-dollar lesson about liability, agriculture, and institutional hubris.
An avocado farmer seeks compensation for a fire-damaged fence caused by a downed power line, but the quarry owner’s refusal leads to a massive crop-damage windfall
California courts and statutes have long recognized special remedies for damage to trees, timber, and productive land, sometimes including doubled or trebled damages where the wrongdoer’s conduct was willful or malicious. (See Cal. Civ. Code § 3346 on damages for injury to trees and timber.)
More broadly, utilities in California have faced heavy liability for wildfire and infrastructure-caused damage in recent years. Regulatory and legal pressure, plus high-profile settlements and government suits, mean companies often face enormous exposure when lines ignite fires or fall into combustible vegetation.
The legal landscape around utility liability has been in flux, and courts frequently weigh the value of lost crops, infrastructure repair, and economic disruption to farming operations.
There are three practical lessons here. First, agricultural losses are not trivial: orchards can represent years-to-decades of investment and are measured in per-acre long-term values, not quick retail margins.
Second, defendants who reflexively refuse to settle small claims may provoke discovery and independent investigation that reveals deeper negligence, and exposure multiplies quickly.
Third, California’s policy environment makes utilities particularly vulnerable; the last decade saw major settlements and ongoing litigation that underscore how costly a single ignition event can be. (See reporting on recent major utility settlements and government suits.) Reuters
Ultimately, this wasn’t about vindictive litigation so much as risk-management gone wrong. The grower’s willingness to litigate, backed by solid legal strategy, forced the quarry to internalize the true scale of agricultural harm. In other words, when you undervalue a farmer’s crop, the legal system can re-price it dramatically.
Here’s what Redditors had to say:
Reddit users joked about avocado economics
This group geeked out on wordplay, noting “avocat” means lawyer in French and loving the “sue us” slapdown
Some commenters saw the upside
One user chuckled at lawyer referrals
While this couple vented PG&E frustrations
And this person cheered California’s ag muscle
The avocado farmer didn’t start with dreams of a courtroom windfall; he wanted his fence replaced and his trees replanted. But when the defendant turned a reasonable request into a dare, the growers’ choice to litigate transformed a patch of charred fence into a multimillion-dollar reckoning.
It’s a sharp reminder: negligence near agricultural land can carry consequences far beyond a bill for lumber. Would you have taken the initial offer or rolled the dice in court? Share your verdict below.
