Wolff v. City of Los Angeles

The plaintiffs in these three cases appeal from several judgments rendered against them upon

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 non-suit 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 that “detriment is a loss or harm suffered in person or property.” (Civ. Code, sec. 3282.) In these cases it is claimed there was a loss or harm suffered in the property of the appellants, but unless this detriment was the result of an unlawful act or omission, there is no right to damages. As has been stated there is no question concerning the lawfulness of the work done by the municipality. None of the property of the respective plaintiffs abutted on any of the work done, and, therefore, there was no physical taking of or change in the

In reliance upon decisions of the highest courts of other states and isolated texts of able writers upon the subjects of highways and municipal corporations, the parties before the court argue for and against the adoption of a rule which in such cases as these would arbitrarily deny the right to damages to owners of property not directly abutting on or touched by the part of the highway graded or closed. This court is unwilling to give approval to such a rule, which in its opinion would denude the constitutional provision of much of the benefit and security intended to be guaranteed to the property owner on its adoption. That the rule contended for on the part of the municipality is too narrow this court has no doubt. On the other hand, the court is not of the opinion that every depreciation in value of property by reason of a public improvement in the neighborhood can be made the basis of an award of damages. For instance, the owner of a store or apartment house on a much-traveled street might lose the greater part of his trade, or the rental or sale value of his property might be cut in half, by the public grading and improving another and parallel street one or two blocks away, which, by giving more direct access to distant parts of the city, or by causing the adjoining property to be improved with newer and more attractive buildings, would cause the public to use the newly improved thoroughfare and largely to abandon the old, yet that indirect result of the lawful improvement would not give rise to damages. For any one of a multitude of reasons, or for no reason at all, traffic may swing from one street to another at any time, and when one buys property' he buys with knowledge of such fortuitous changes.

The constitutional provision in question (art. I, sec. 14) is that “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been

In the Reardon case there was physical injury to the plaintiff’s land. Recovery for that injury might have been had as for a tort, upon a proper showing, regardless of the constitutional provision. The language of the decision was broad enough to reach a ease where there was no physical injury. Suppose, for instance, one owned property on a street having an outlet in one direction only, and the municipality should grade the only cross-street to a level so far above or so far below that of the street on which the property was located as to make access to the property practically impossible. If such a condition existed, the damage would be within the protection of the constitution and the right of the owner to recover would in no way depend on the proximity of the injured lot to the actual work done, nor would the fact that the particular lot was not physically injured have any proper weight in the consideration of the case. There is nothing at variance with these views in the case of Eachus v. Los Angeles etc. Ry., 103 Cal. 617 , [ 42 Am. St. Rep. 149 , 37 Pac. 751 ],

[1] Stated most strongly for the appellants, at the time of the motion for nonsuit, the evidence showed that the lands of the respective appellants were situated at or near a street parallel with North Broadway. Another parallel street intervened between the two. The lands were near or abutted on a transverse street, known as California Street, parallel to which, one block away, ran Temple Street. The first block of California Street between North Broadway and the lands of the appellants was necessarily graded, and the incline, was increased, so that it was not so convenient for use as it had been. The grade on Temple Street was not changed, and the lands in question were readily accessible by way of that street. There was less traffic along California Street than formerly, but it did not appear that this was caused entirely by the grading of California Street. Rentals were depreciated, but the witnesses for the respective plaintiffs differed greatly both in regard to the degree of depreciation and the fractional part thereof which might have been caused by the grading, since it was admitted that rentals and sale values of all

The judgment is affirmed in each of the three appeals.

Langdon, P. J., and Nourse, J., concurred.

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, and the following opinion then rendered thereon:

Without committing ourselves to all that is said in the district court of appeal opinion, we think the opinion clearly shows that in this case there was no such, damage shown as to warrant a recovery. The utmost that the evidence tends to show is that by reason of the grading of one block of California Street, located a considerable distance from plaintiff’s property and beyond another cross-street, which in no way interfered with the easy and convenient access to plaintiff’s property by other streets, the use of California Street as a thoroughfare near plaintiff’s property was not as extensive as before such grading. Assuming this to have been proven, it did not show that damage contemplated by the constitutional provision. This is sufficiently shown by the opinion of the district court of appeal. ■

The application for a hearing in this court is denied.

All the Justices concurred.