Seacrist

Seacrist v. S. Cal. Edison Co.

Good Law
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 834·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 56·244 Cal. App. 4th 308
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2016E061294California7,107 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Miller, J.

*310 In a Fourth Amended Complaint, Kathy Seacrist and her son, John McDonald, sued (1) Southern California Edison (Edison); (2) the City of Palm Desert; (3) J.R. Roberts; and (4) Does 5 through 100. The Fourth Amended Complaint included seven causes of action against Edison: (a) negligence; (b) nuisance; (c) trespass; (d)

*836 strict liability/products liability; (e) strict liability/implied warranty of fitness; (f) strict liability/ultra hazardous activity; and (g) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Seacrist owned a home near an Edison substation. Seacrist and McDonald (collectively, "plaintiffs") alleged stray electrical currents from the substation were causing them to suffer various medical issues. The trial court sustained Edison's demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The trial court concluded, "Plaintiffs claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission," and thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute with Edison. The trial court sustained the demurrer on March 5, 2014.

On February 9, 2015, the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal held the California Public…

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.