 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laursen v. Pope11/23/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Earl Laursen appeals from a $1,146,000 judgment entered in favor of Harry C. Pope and Vicki A. Pope after a jury found that Laursen intentionally destroyed a water system servicing Pope's house in Nipomo. Laursen contends, among other things, that the judgment is not supported by the evidence and that the award for compensatory and punitive damages is excessive.
As we shall explain, the award for $750,000 punitive damages is disproportionate to Laursen's net worth and must be reduced. (Storage Services v. Oosterbaan (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 498, 515-516.) We reduce the punitive damages to $295,000. As modified, we affirm the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 906.)
Facts and Procedural History
This action arises out of a water and road dispute that dates back 20 years. In 1980, Laursen sold Harry C. Pope and Vicki A. Pope 10.63 acres (Parcel 3) which included a 10-foot wide easement across Laursen's property (Parcel 2) for a water line. Laursen represented that water would be available from a neighbor's well (the Rubio well) after he subdivided Parcels 1, 2 and 4 and installed a community water system. It was agreed that Pope could take water from a well on Parcel 2 until a hook up was made to the Rubio well.
Pope built a home and installed a water line to the Rubio well in 1984. Rubio, however, disconnected the water line and claimed that Pope did not have an electrical easement to operate the well.
Pope reconnected the water line to the Parcel 2 well and sued after Laursen denied access to the well. (Case No. 58423.) The trial court ordered Laursen not to interfere with Pope's use of the well. We reversed and held that Laursen was not obligated to supply water from the Parcel 2 well after Pope established a water line to the Rubio well. (B029444.)
In a related action, Laursen sued to maintain a water line to the Rubio well. (Laursen v. Rubio, San Luis Obispo County Sup. Ct., Case No. 57806.) The trial court found that Laursen had an easement to install, maintain, repair and replace the well equipment, the water and electrical lines, and appurtenant facilities. The easement ran in favor of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, including Parcel 3 owned by Pope.
After judgment was entered in the Laursen-Rubio action, Pope connected a water line to the Rubio well. Laursen, however, cut and pulled up the water line. Pope obtained an injunction (Case No. 58423) but Laursen continued to vandalize the water system and was threatened with criminal prosecution.
This resulted in a new round of litigation. Laursen sued for trespass, nuisance, emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. (Case No. 68528.) Pope filed a cross-complaint and obtained a preliminary injunction. In 1998, a jury found that the easement across Laursen's property (Parcel 2) included the right to maintain an electrical line to operate the Rubio well.
On January 26, 1999, Laursen and Pope entered into a stipulated judgment to install a water monitoring system and water meters. The judgment provided that a 7,500 gallon community water tank would be installed on the eastern portion of Laursen's property and that the parcel owners would share the cost of installing the electrical system and tank.
After Pope obtained work estimates, Laursen removed well head equipment and cut the wate
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|