Karim v. City of Pomona
The first question presented is whether a landslide on an improved, public slope[1] supports liability for inverse condemnation and nuisance due to the damage it caused to private property. The answer is yes. The second question is whether appellant City of Pomona (City) was entitled to an offset against inverse condemnation damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877[2] for the amount paid in settlement by codefendants in the nuisance cause of action. The answer is no. The final question is whether the attorney fee award in favor of the respondents (homeowners) under section 1036 was proper. Because the record fails to establish whether the trial court adhered to the law when it determined the amount of the award, the matter must be remanded. Court therefore reverse the judgment for a recalculation of the attorney fee award. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Karim v. City of Pomona