Laserfiche WebLink
\./ NW./ <br /> James L.L. Barton. P.G. <br /> April 13. 2007 <br /> Page 11 of 14 <br /> [31 Having concluded that the statute must be construed "in light of the <br /> common law principles bearing upon the same subject' (Leslie Salt, supra. <br /> 153 Cal.App.3d at P. 619. 200 Cal.Rptr. 575) --- here the subject of public <br /> nuisance-we turn next to identify those principles. <br /> It has long been the law in California that" '[n]ot only is the party who <br /> maintains the nuisance liable but also the party or parties who create or <br /> assist in its creation are responsible for the ensuing damages.' " (Mangini v. <br /> Aeroiet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1137, 281 Cal.Rptr. <br /> 827. <br /> Thus, courts have upheld as against a demurrer a nuisance claim founded <br /> upon allegations that defendants disposed of hazardous substances on <br /> property during their lease, but at the time of the action did not have a <br /> possessory interest in the property(id. at pp. 1132-1133, 1137, 281 Cal.Rptr. <br /> 827 . and on allegations that defendant soils engineer prepared a plan for <br /> slope repair on a neighboring property which, when constructed, caused <br /> water, mud, and debris to flow onto the plaintiffs property(Shurpin v. Elmhirst <br /> (1983) 148 Cal.AprOcl 94, 100-101, 195 Cal.Rptr. 737). <br /> Similarly, a nonsuit on plaintiffs cause of action for nuisance was reversed <br /> where the evidence showed defendant contractor dumped fill on a street, <br /> interfering with drainage and causing the plaintiffs property to be flooded. <br /> (Portman v. Clementina Co. (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 651, 654, 659-660, 305 <br /> P.2d 963.) <br /> And the Supreme Court has held that a defendant who obstructs a private <br /> road can be liable for nuisance, irrespective of whether he claims any interest <br /> in the land over which the plaintiff claimed a right of way. (Hardin v. Sin <br /> Claire(1896) 115 Cal. 460, 462-463, 47 P. 363.) <br /> In sum, liability for nuisance does not hinge on whether the defendant owns, <br /> possesses or controls the property, nor on whether he is in a position to <br /> abate the nuisance: the critical question is whether the defendant <br /> created or assisted in the creation of the nuisance. (Newhall Land& <br /> Farming Co. v. Superior Court(1993) 19 Cal.AppAth 334, 343, 23 <br /> Cal.Rptr.2d 377.) (Emphasis supplied.) <br /> My client did not "create or assist in the creation of the contamination. Irl. <br /> As the Modesto court recognized, the common law and statutory foundation of <br /> the notion that any property owner who has title to property at any time after a release <br /> is found in the common law of nuisance. The common law of nuisance has been <br />