49 Cal.App. 400, Civ. 3450, Wolff v. City of Los Angeles
|Docket Nº:||Civ. 3450, 3451, 3452|
|Citation:||49 Cal.App. 400, 193 P. 862|
|Opinion Judge:||BRITTAIN, Judge|
|Party Name:||ESTHER WOLFF, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Respondent. PHILLIP EICHHOLZ, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Respondent. SOPHIA A. KEYM, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Respondent|
|Attorney:||Ford & Hammon and Henry G. Bodkin for Appellant. Charles S. Burnell, City Attorney, and Robert L. Hanley, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: BRITTAIN, J. Langdon, P. J., and Nourse, J., concurred. Langdon, P. J., and Nourse, J., concurred.|
|Case Date:||September 29, 1920|
|Court:||California Court of Appeals|
A Petition to have the Cause Heard in the Supreme Court, after Judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was Denied by the Supreme Court on November 24, 1920.
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Louis W. Myers, Judge.
The plaintiffs in these three cases appeal from several judgments rendered against them upon
nonsuits granted on motion of the respondent municipality. The cases were consolidated for the purpose of the respective appeals, it being stipulated that the judgment in the Wolff case should control the determination of the other two appeals. The plaintiffs as owners of their respective lots of land sued for damages for injuries claimed to have been suffered by them by reason of the depreciation of the values of their lands caused, as they alleged, by the opening of North Broadway tunnel and the grading of the approaches thereto and of adjacent streets in the city of Los Angeles. Except in regard to the exact location of the respective properties, their values and the amount of depreciation, if any was caused by the opening of the tunnel, the facts of the three cases are the same and are unquestioned.
The work in question was done under ordinances adopted pursuant to a general act of the legislature permitting such work to be done by municipalities under the assessment plan. No question is presented concerning the power of the municipality to order the work to be done, nor of the regularity of the procedure, nor is there any regarding the preliminary steps taken by the plaintiffs to perfect their right to sue. The sole question is whether upon the evidence before the court at the time the motion for nonsuit was made the respective plaintiffs were entitled to damages, or whether the cases were within the old rule that damages are never recoverable without a showing of legal injury. The old rule of damnum absque injuria is the foundation of the code provisions that " every person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called damages" (Civ. Code, sec. 3281 ), and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP