California Wants To Import "Comparative Fault" to Inverse Condemnation
What will they think of next?
Those of us who know inverse condemnation understand that because the cause of action is based in the constitution, that the usual tort concepts such as negligence and comparative fault aren't part of the equation. Generally speaking, under California law, liability is triggered when government conduct is a "substantial cause" of the damage.
The California Assembly wants to change all that. It has introduced Assembly Bill No. 1402 (Feb. 27, 2015), which would, in the bill's words, "apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking."
Apparently this isn't the first time a bill like this has been introduced, and our colleagues at the California Eminent Domain Report did a good write-up and analysis of an effort to get a similar measure adopted in 2011. See "The 'Tortification' of Inverse Condemnation?" (Feb. 18, 2011).
Hopefully, AB No. 1402 suffers the same fate as the earlier bill.
This blog is not legal advice. But come on man, you knew that already! Reading this blog does not make you a client, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. Nor should you rely on the posts or comments for counsel on your situation. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This blog is not sponsored by the author's firm, and the views expressed by the author are just that, his views; they are not the views of his clients, his firm or its clients, or anyone but the author.
