Key California Civil Codes that the Defense (the City and County of San Francisco), despite clear court rulingsmaintains do not apply to them.
Summaries
                         Civil Code Section 3479 
 
Los Angeles homeowners sued the City of Los Angeles for injuries due to excessive noise from aircraft using the airport. The court held that a nuisance cause of action arising from aircraft noise is not preempted by federal regulation of aviation. There is no reason in law or policy why the nuisance remedy provided by Civil code s. 3479 should not apply.
                      Civil Code Section 3482 
In contrast to what the City and County of San Francisco maintains, Civil Code 3482  does NOT apply to runway noise; it's been rejected in both appellate and the California Supreme Court. Here are two examples:
 

Example #1:  In Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 1972, the appellate court (agreeing with the trial court) denied the defendant’s argument that the California statute Cal, Civ. Code section 3482 provided the airport with immunity from nuisance liability. 

 

                      https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1836409.html

...While the statue designates the use of the runways for aircraft, it does not expressly authorize the excessive noise levels of the aircraft on the runways.”

 

Example #2:     Greater Westchester V. City of LA, 1979, taken from Journal of Air Law and Commerce, volume 47, issue 3, 1982, Airport Noise Litigation: Case Law Review, page 483

             https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2342&context=jalc    

Moreover, the city's liability is not precluded by Civil Code s. 3482 which states that nothing done or maintained under express authority of statute can be deemed a nuisance. (Note: From a California Supreme Court decision: "This, of course, means that there must be an express statutory provision to that effect before a nuisance becomes legal.") Statutes that broadly authorize or regulate airports or flights do not create legislative sanction for their maintenance as a nuisance.
(26 Cal. 3d.86, 160 Cal. Rptr. 733, 603 P.2d 1329)
                     Civil Code Section 3484 
 
The abatement of a nuisance does not prejudice the right of any person to recover damages for its past existence
 
In Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 1972, the appellate court (agreeing with the trial court) denied the defendant’s argument that the California statute Cal, Civ. Code section 3482 provided the airport with immunity from nuisance liability.  
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon

© 2018 by Sally Meakin.