|
Quinn v. Coulton A172217 (First Appellate District, Division Two) July 20, 2026 Following an unusually severe rainstorm in San Francisco, uphill and downhill neighbors sued each other after a retaining wall collapsed. Claims included claims for nuisance, negligence, and loss of lateral support, with the downhill neighbors countersuing for nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Before trial, some parties settled, leaving Mary Coulton as the sole remaining downhill neighbor defendant and cross-complainant.
The San Francisco County Superior Court denied Coulton’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the loss of lateral support claim, finding at least a cause of action for negligence. Before trial, the court granted Coulton’s motion in limine to exclude strict liability and negligence per se claims based on Civil Code section 832, concluding that strict liability does not apply absent excavation. The uphill neighbors then voluntarily dismissed their nuisance and negligence claims, and the court entered judgment in favor of Coulton. Coulton later sought expert fees as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, based on joint settlement offers made to the uphill neighbors, which the trial court upheld. The California Court of Appeal held that California law does not recognize a strict liability claim for loss of lateral support absent excavation, thus affirming the trial court’s exclusion of that claim. However, the appellate court found Coulton’s joint section 998 offers invalid because they were unapportioned among multiple plaintiffs with separate claims, and no unity of interest exception applied. Comments are closed.
|
Our Sponsors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
