Miranda

Miranda v. Shell Oil Co.

Good Law
15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 569·17 Cal. App. 4th 1651·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 2·93 Daily Journal DAR 197·23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20779
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 1993F013486California2,755 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dibiaso, J.

Plaintiffs ask this court to reverse the entry of a summary judgment in their “toxic-tort” action.

We will reverse the summary judgment. In the published portion, we hold that the cost of future medical monitoring, to detect the onset of disease caused by exposure to pollutants, is a “detriment” under Civil Code section 3333.

Statement of Case and Facts

Defendants manufactured and sold the pesticide 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP). The plaintiffs named in the third amended complaint numbered well in excess of 100, and were alleged to be students or adults who drank water contaminated with DBCP at a public school in Kern County between 1965 and mid-1984. Until DBCP was banned in the late 1970’s, farmers used the chemical in the manner it was intended to be used, i.e., by applying it in the soil and on various crops. The pesticide so used migrated into the groundwater supply of the school in concentrations exceeding state health standards. In addition to “serious personal injuries” alleged to have been suffered by plaintiffs as a result of their ingestion of DBCP, plaintiffs pled claims for past and future medical care, for the increased risk of contracting cancer,…

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.