Defense Claim #3 - Plaintiffs haven't been harmed

Listed are two court rulings and a Judicial Council of California regulation re: "harm" that says otherwise.

 

      "The first additional requirement for recovery of damages on a nuisance theory is proof that the invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the use and enjoyment of the land was substantial, i.e., that it caused the plaintiff to suffer 'substantial actual damage'. The Restatement recognizes the same requirement as the need for proof of 'significant harm', which it variously defines as 'harm of importance' and a 'real and appreciable innovations of the plaintiff's interests' and an invasion that is 'definitely offensive, seriously annoying or intolerable'.

             San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court 1996

            13 Cal.4th at p. 938

       "We acknowledge that to recover on a nuisance claim, the harm the plaintiff suffered need not be a physical injury."

           Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co.  2015

            234 Cal.App 4th at p. 159

Three Quotes From the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions 2016:

 

         CACI No.  2022 Private Nuisance .....to determine the extent of the harm, meaning how much the (noise) caused interference with plaintiff's use of his/her property, and how long that interference lasted.

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon

© 2018 by Sally Meakin.