 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Van Tonder v. Chevron Corporation2/25/2003
by the nuisance created and maintained by the defendant is an element of loss of enjoyment. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 287-288, italics added.) Accordingly, such damages may be objectively determined.
The Supreme Court has also stated that the application of such an objective standard devolves from the public policy supporting the right of the plaintiff to be free from interference as the result of the "unreasonable" behavior of the defendant. In San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893 (San Diego Gas & Electric) the Supreme Court concluded that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had jurisdiction over similar "inconvenience" claims in the context of a suit concerning the alleged dangers of high tension power lines and sounding in nuisance and trespass. While the opinion did not decide whether a fear of future harm is the sort of "annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort" that can support a cause of action, it expressly left open that possibility. And it described the policy of the law that permits recovery for interference with a plaintiff's use and enjoyment of property, which is applicable to the "inconvenience" allegedly suffered by the plaintiff class in this case. The opinion provided an exegesis of the nature of the proof of damage necessary to support such a claim, even in the absence of subjective evidence of damage.
The opinion in San Diego Gas & Electric informs us here by establishing that there can be a legal basis for an award of damages that does not require either proof of physical damage or subjective evidence of the sort of emotional distress which this trial court characterized as necessarily too individualized for a class action. Justice Mosk's opinion acknowledged that "` he law of torts does not attempt to impose liability or shift the loss in every case in which one person's conduct has some detrimental effect on another. Liability for damages is imposed in those cases in which the harm or risk to one is greater than he ought to be required to bear under the circumstances, at least without compensation' [citation]." However, the circumstances in which "the harm or risk is greater than one should be required to bear" are suggested by the requirements necessary to establish an incorporeal interference with a plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of his or her property. (San Diego Gas & Electric, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 938.)
Accordingly: " he Restatement recognizes the [first additional] requirement as the need for proof of `significant harm' (Rest.2d Torts, ยง 821F), which it variously defines as `harm of importance' and a `real and appreciable invasion of the plaintiff's interests' [citation] and an invasion that is `definitely offensive, seriously annoying or intolerable' [citation]. . . . [ ] The second additional requirement . . . is superficially similar but analytically distinct: `The interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be unreasonable' [citation], i.e., it must be `of such a nature, duration or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.' [Citations.] The primary test for determining whether the invasion is unreasonable is whether the gravity of the harm outweighs the social utility of the defendant's conduct, taking a number of factors into account. [Citation.]" (San Diego Gas & Electric, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 938.)
These requirements are considered by application of a standard that is objective: "the question is not whether the particular plaintiff found the invasion unreasonable, but `whether reasonable persons generally, looking at the whole situation impartially and objectively, would cons
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|