The Sixth Appellate District reversed a judgment and order denying a new trial. The court held that the trial court properly determined that an easement allowing for operation of a billboard necessarily prohibited unreasonable interference with the billboard’s visibility, but newly discovered evidence regarding damages required granting of a motion for new trial.
James and Dawn Hill had owned and operated a two-sided commercial billboard since the 1970’s on a section of a parcel of property adjoining their parcel located along Highway 101 in San Jose. The billboard was near the joint property line. In 2000, the Hills entered into a written easement agreement relating to their use of the billboard with the then owner of the adjacent parcel.
