Shurpin

Shurpin v. Elmhirst

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 3d 94·195 Cal. Rptr. 737·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2287
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 19, 1983Civ. 66754California2,881 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Appellant, Leslie Shurpin, appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer was sustained to his first amended complaint without leave to amend.

Shurpin’s amended complaint is comprised of eight causes of action from which we are able to discern the following operative facts. On or about February 16, 1980, a landslide occurred in which mud and debris from defendant Susanna Elmhirst’s property entered onto Shurpin’s property. The debris destroyed the rear wall of Shurpin’s guest house and caused substantial structural damage to the remaining portions of the house, its contents, fixtures and personal property contained therein.

In or about March 1980, defendant Elmhirst retained codefendant/respondent, Geosoils, for the purpose of submitting recommendations for the reconstruction of the slope. Geosoils prepared a report in which three alternative remedial means for rebuilding the failed slope were proposed. The slope was eventually reconstructed by another contractor.

On January 7, 1981, Shurpin filed a six-count complaint for damages arising from real and personal property trespass, negligence and nuisance. Named as defendants were Elmhirst and 50 Does.…

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.