Discrimination defense lawyer for employers

An action against a city for damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s property resulting from the grading of a street in the mode provided by statute thus causing an embankment to be formed whereby water that formerly ran in a watercourse crossing the street was stopped and backed upon the plaintiff’s land, was based upon an act constituting a trespass on real property and was not barred under subd 2 until three years from the accrual of the cause. Conniff v. San Francisco (Cal. May 22, 1885), 67 Cal. 45, 7 P. 41, 1885 Cal. CALIFLAW 539. The discrimination defense lawyer for employers helps in litigations.

An action for damages caused by the erection of a bulkhead diverting storm waters ordinarily and naturally flowing across the defendant’s land to flow over the plaintiff’s lands, thereby causing deep washes and gullies to be cut in a public highway in which the plaintiff owned a fee, is not for trespass upon real property within subd 2, but is in the nature of an action upon the case and is governed by CCP § 339(1). Hicks v. Drew (Cal. June 17, 1897), 117 Cal. 305, 49 P. 189, 1897 Cal. CALIFLAW 658.

An action for damages for injuries caused by the defendant’s erection of a levee on a river resulting in a new channel being formed by the deflected water cutting through the plaintiff’s land is within CCP § 339(1), and not subd 2 of this section, as the damage was consequential and the action in the nature of the common law action of trespass on the case. Daneri v. Southern C. R. Co. (Cal. Nov. 30, 1898), 122 Cal. 507, 55 P. 243, 1898 Cal. CALIFLAW 621.

An action for damages caused by the washing and carrying away of the plaintiff’s land because of a defective sewer maintained by the defendant over its land located in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s was within CCP § 339(1), not subd 2 of this section, as the acts complained of did not constitute a trespass upon real property, the damages being consequential and in the nature of trespass on the case. Crim v. San Francisco (Cal. Nov. 13, 1907), 152 Cal. 279, 92 P. 640, 1907 Cal. CALIFLAW 340.

An action for damages to land upon a lake caused by raising the level of the water at the outlet of the lake in connection with the maintenance of a reclamation dam is in the nature of trespass on the case and must be brought within two years. Law v. Smith (9th Cir. Cal. Apr. 2, 1923), 288 F. 7, 1923 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 2098.

Limitation of action for damages to real property arising out of change of natural drainage waters flowing across plaintiff’s land, comes within subd 2. Slaback v. Wakefield (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Mar. 23, 1959), 169 CalifLaw 2d 40, 336 P.2d 609, 1959 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2032.

CCP § 338(b) did not bar an action to enforce water rights, even if plaintiffs had suspicions that defendant had trespassed on their property between 1990 and 1995 and failed to sue until 2002, because where a trespass was continuing, but not necessarily permanent, the statute did not bar an action until three years after the last act of trespass. Baugh v. Garl (CalifLaw 2d Dist. Mar. 13, 2006), 137 CalifLaw 4th 737, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539, 2006 CalifLawCALIFLAW 334.