Opinion ID: 1119106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What the Evidence Showed

Text: As reflected in our recitation of the facts, the evidence adduced at trial showed that contaminants were found but the extent of contamination and viability of remediation are unknown. In the words of plaintiffs' expert: [T]he heart of the situation is there's not enough known about the site yet to assess what remedial measures need to be done or can be done out there effectively. Additionally, both at trial and on appeal plaintiffs conceded the lack of evidence of the extent of contamination and what it would take to decontaminate the property. (3) The concessions appear in plaintiffs' closing argument to the jury and in their appellate brief, both of which may be taken as admissions against the party. ( Mangini I, supra, 230 Cal. App.3d at p. 1152; DeRose v. Carswell (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 1011, 1019, fn. 3 [242 Cal. Rptr. 368].) [] (1c) On appeal, plaintiffs again concede there was no evidence of the extent of the contamination. Thus, they state in their appellate brief that the total volume of soil requiring remediation has not yet been determined....