Heninger v. Dunn

101 Cal.App.3d 858 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In April 1971, D bulldozed a rough road, approximately seven-tenths of a mile long, on P's land. D acted despite P's objections, relying on the advice of an attorney who had erroneously told D that they held a valid easement permitting the cutting of the road. The bulldozing killed or damaged 225 trees, and destroyed much vegetative undergrowth, but the road provided additional access to P's property, thereby increasing its market value $5,000 -- from $179,000 just before the trespass to $184,000 immediately following the trespass. P sued D in trespass. The trial court found that it was technically possible to replace the dead or dying trees, at a cost of $221,647, and that vegetative undergrowth could be restored at a cost of $19,610. But the court denied damages because there was no depreciation in the value of P's property, concluding that '[it] is the rule in California that if the cost of repair or restoration of damaged property amounts to more than its depreciation in value because of the damage, the plaintiff cannot obtain a greater sum than the amount of the depreciation.' P appealed. P contends that the court's understanding of the rule of damages was incorrect, and that the proper measure of their damages was the lesser of costs of restoration or the pre-trespass value of their property, i.e., $179,000.