How have courts interpreted section 19 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on liability for property damaged by the construction of a public improvement?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, 10 Cal.4th 368, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 658, 895 P.2d 900 (Cal. 1995):

In Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250, 42 Cal.Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129, this court, again considering the effect of the words "or damaged" in section 19, held that the owner of property abutting a public improvement was entitled to compensation where the property was damaged as a result of the construction of that public improvement. In Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441, we referred to our decision in Albers as follows: "In announcing our holding in Albers ..., we did not overlook the competing considerations which caution against an open-ended, 'absolute liability' rule of inverse condemnation. Recognizing that 'fears have been expressed that compensation, allowed too liberally, will seriously impede, if not stop, beneficial public improvements because of the greatly increased cost' [citation], we deemed it prudent to focus our policy inquiry on situations which shared a general [10 Cal.4th 383] factual similarity with that present in Albers. Thus we limited our holding of inverse condemnation liability, absent fault, to 'physical injuries of real property' that were 'proximately caused' by the improvement as deliberately constructed and planned." (Id. at pp. 303-304, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441, italics added, fn. omitted.)

Other Questions


How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
Does section 125.3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure apply to the construction of the statute, and if so, does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the interpretation of the law? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 139 of the California Civil Code, section 139 2 of the S.C. Code of Civil Procedure? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 830.6(1) of the California Highway Code of Civil Procedure when determining whether a defendant is immune from liability under the California Motor Vehicle Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 17,000 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and how have they interpreted the law? (California, United States of America)
Is liability under section 13385 of the California Civil Code for polluting the environment limited to a public entity's liability under Section 13350, subdivision (a) of the Government Code? (California, United States of America)
When a section of the California Civil Code provides for construction of a statute, how do courts interpret the construction of the statute? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 19996.2(a) of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure when determining whether an employee has been on an unauthorized leave for a period of time? (California, United States of America)
Does the California Supreme Court have any authority or authority to amend or amend a section of the California Statutory Code of Civil Procedure to make it easier for a plaintiff to sue for damages? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the California Civil Code section 1714 of the Civil Code apply to an individual who has been denied a right to claim damages under the Civil Procedure Act? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.