David

Smith v. David

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 3d 101·176 Cal. Rptr. 112·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1811
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1981Civ. 4302California4,286 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

We review a defense judgment following jury trial where plaintiff tenants sought to recover .compensatory and punitive damages for (1) the defendant landlord’s alleged breach of a warranty of habitability of a rented building; (2) the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) the maintenance of a -nuisance. The jury returned special verdicts finding for the defendant landlord on all three causes of action.

Plaintiffs contend the judgment must be reversed because of instructional errors relating to the causes of action for breach of warranty and for nuisance. We agree. Plaintiffs also contend the trial court should have entered a directed verdict in their favor on the nuisance cause of action. We disagree.

The Evidence

The plaintiffs in this action are Kenneth Smith, a 50-year-old disabled shoemaker, his wife Tommie Jean who is also disabled, and their daughter, Evelyn. The family survived on a disability pension of $294 a month and meager amounts the family members were able to earn in part-time work.

The evidence portrayed the difficult situation this family faced in finding affordable housing. In December 1976, they were forced to leave their previous…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.