Nisevic v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5
Filed 10/16/13 Nisevic v. City of Los Angeles CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
SINISHA NISEVIC, B244910
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC111319) v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed. Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Timothy McWilliams, Supervising Attorney, and Peter E. Langsfeld, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of John E. Torbett, Jr., John E. Torbett, Jr.; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Michael M. Berger and Benjamin G. Shatz for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Defendant City of Los Angeles appeals from the judgment of $5,053,548 entered in favor of plaintiff Sinisha Nisevic in an action for inverse condemnation based on damage caused when sewage backed up into Nisevic’s property. The City’s only contention on appeal is that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence.1 We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The liability phase of this inverse condemnation action was tried to the court. The only issue at the liability phase of trial was causation of damages. The parties entered into a stipulation to the following facts pertinent to liability. Nisevic owns a house at 1001 Main Street, Venice (the property), that was damaged by a sewer back up on August 4, 2010, caused by root intrusion in the City’s sewer main. The house is connected to the sewer main in an alley behind the house. The City maintains the sewer main as a public improvement. Sewage damaged various parts of Nisevic’s home-office. Nisevic bought the property from William Meurer in 2009, after renting it for two years. After two sewage backups occurred while he owned the property, Meurer hired a plumber to install a backwater valve on the lateral line running from the house to the main sewer line in the alley. The valve, if functioning properly, would prevent sewage from passing back into the house in the event of a blockage. The plumber told Meurer that the sewer line in the alley behind the house was old and in disrepair. Installation of the backwater valve was the only work Meurer had done on the sewer system. Sage Beagle, a licensed plumber with 23 years experience, performed a video inspection of the sewer line in May 2012. He observed a backwater valve in the lateral
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)