Jury: Eastwood Didn't Violate Disabilities Act

S A N  J O S E, Calif, Sept. 29., 2000 -- Clint Eastwood does not have to paydamages to a disabled woman who says his Mission Ranch Inn violatedthe Americans with Disabilities Act, a jury found today.

The U.S. District Court jury deliberated for four hours Thursdayand today before making Eastwood’s day.

Eastwood was found liable only for two minor violationsregarding access to the hotel office at his historic hotel nearCarmel — not enough signs to the restroom and no ramp access to thehotel office.

After the verdict was read, Eastwood patted one of his attorneyson the hand. He later shook hands with the jurors and gave themautographs.

“I think there were too many lies told in court and I think thejury could see through that,” Eastwood told The Associated Press.“Once you tell a lie and it gets out of control, it’s like arunaway train.”

Considering Appeal

Diane zum Brunnen, 51, who has muscular dystrophy and uses awheelchair, was not present when the verdict was read. Her lawyerJohn Burris said he was considering whether to appeal.

She and her husband said they visited the Mission Ranch in 1995and 1996, and she sued Eastwood in 1997. They complained that thewheelchair-accessible bathroom was in another building, more than200 feet away, across a driveway; the only accessible guest roomcost $225 a night, when other rooms were as little as $85; andthere was no ramp to the main office.

Deliberations began after Burris told jurors they should notexcuse Eastwood from requirements of the ADA and a similarCalifornia law because he is a “very special man.” He did notspecify how much damages they were seeking.

“I believe he thinks as a matter of principle he is entitled tospecial consideration from you,” Burris said in his closingarguments, gesturing across the courtroom toward theactor-director.

Burris said Eastwood spent millions renovating his Mission Ranchnear Carmel but neglected to spend a “fistful of dollars” — areference to the first of Eastwood’s “spaghetti Westerns” — onimproving disabled access.

Eastwood attorney Chuck Keller also used the reference in hisclosing argument.

“Make no bones about it,” Keller said. “That’s why theplaintiff is here … because she, and those who represent her,want a fistful of dollars.”

Eastwood, 70, said he should have been told about the problemsso he could fix them instead of being sued. The zum Brunnenstestified that they sent Eastwood two letters in 1995 to complainabout the disparity in room rates but got no answer.

Preserving the Ranch

Eastwood bought Mission Ranch, a former dairy farm dating to the1850s, in 1987 for more than $4 million. He testified that hisrenovations have tried to ensure disabled access while preservingthe ranch’s historic character.

He also pointed out that Monterey County building officials hadapproved all plans. “I’m not against the ADA; I want to make thatclear,” Eastwood said today. “But the small business personcannot be an expert in the ADA and state laws, especially if theplanning department says, ‘OK. Go ahead.’”

Zum Brunnen’s lawyer suggested that Eastwood, who was mayor ofCarmel from 1986 to 1988, got favorable treatment.

Juror Lorenzo Gutierrez said the jury agreed right away that zumBrunnen did not deserve any money.

“We kind of didn’t think she was really there for dinner,” hesaid, implying that zum Brunnen went to the ranch looking forviolations.

Eastwood said his insurance company had pressured him to settlewith the zum Brunnens, but he decided instead to take a stand.

“I’d rather be on the side of right than let these guys getaway with murder,” he said, adding that he’s now “out a lot” inattorney’s fees.

“We all know this is about — cash,” he said outside courtThursday, theatrically whispering and elongating the final word.