Scurich v. Ryan
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Temporary Exclusion of Tenant for Tears from a Leased Orchard— Damages—Excessive Verdict.—In an action by a tenant for years of a leased orchard, for a temporary exclusion therefrom for the period of two days by the locking of a gate preventing access thereto, under a claim that the terms of the lease had been violated, it is held that a verdict for $750 damages for such temporary eviction was excessive, and not warranted by the evidence.
Id.—Attorney’s Fees not Allowable as Damages.—Fees paid to an attorney consulted by the tenant are not a proper element of damages for such exclusion of the tenant.
Id.—Burden upon Plaintiff to Make Satisfactory Proof of Damage. The plaintiff, in order to recover damages for such exclusion, must show facts and figures by which his damages may be legally and correctly ascertained. If limbs on the fruit trees were broken during such exclusion, because plaintiff was not allowed to prop them, the number of such limbs, and the value of the fruit so destroyed should be shown. If plaintiff had to haul extra loads of props, the necessity thereof and the expense and cost of hauling them, should be shown.
Id.—Insufficient Support of Verdict.—A verdict cannot be based upon a mere general statement, consisting partly of imagination and partly of opinion, or by evidence of damage of a most general and unsatisfactory character.
Id.—Excessive Verdict Over Actual Damage Proved not Regarded as Punitive—Malice and Oppression not Shown.—The excess in the verdict above the actual damage proved cannot be regarded as punitive damages, though the complaint was framed to recover the same, where the act of the defendant was not inherently malicious or oppressive, and no evidence was introduced to show that it was so in fact, and no instruction was asked on that subject, but there is evidence tending to show that plaintiff had neglected the property, and that defendant acted in good faith in what he did.
Id.—Case Limited to Compensatory Damages.—Although the defendant invaded a right of the plaintiff, since the record fails to show that he acted from any motive of malice or oppression, the ease is one for compensatory damages only.
KERRIGAN, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial in action for damages for the violation of the covenants of a lease.
The plaintiff leased from the defendant an orchard in Santa Cruz county of about thirteen acres, for a term of four years commencing January 3, 1907, at an annual rental of $750. One of the terms of .the lease was that plaintiff was to carefully prune, cultivate, spray and care for said orchard in the manner that orchards are. cultivated, sprayed and cared for in the vicinity.
On August 3, 1908, the defendant claiming that plaintiff had broken that covenant of the lease, served a notice on him purporting to terminate the tenancy, and on the next day closed and locked one of the two gates leading to said premises, and for two days excluded plaintiff and his employees from entering the orchard through said gate. Entrance through the other gate, according to the testimony, of plain
[752]
tiff, was “impracticable.” The plaintiff did not reside on the premises in question.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $750, and judgment was entered accordingly.
The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury as to the amount of the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and we are of the opinion that this contention should be sustained.
Plaintiff testified that the fruit in the orchard was damaged to the value of $250, and that “for time and labor in hauling props and time lost” he was damaged in the further sum of $250. On cross-examination he testified as follows:
“Q. Now you have placed the damage done you by this gate being locked at $500—$250 for the crop and $250 otherwise? A. I said damage to the crop $250 and $250 expense of hiring an attorney.
“ Q. In what way were the apples damaged to the extent of $250 ? A. I cannot tell exactly. That is what I guessed that he damaged it, $250.
“ Q. In what way were they damaged ? A. Well, I claim losing time, not allowing boxes and one thing and another to go in there, the gate was locked, and I could not get in to haul them back.
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)