And The Defense Wins
On August 11, 2009, DRI members William A. Munoz and Kerri L. Ruzicka of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in Sacramento, prevailed on appeal before the California Third District Court of Appeal wherein the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting their client, Rod Read & Sons’ motion for summary judgment in a landlord-tenant action for injuries allegedly caused by mold contamination.
In the action entitled Jackson v. Rod Read & Sons, Jackson asserted, inter alia, claims for breach of contract, negligence and breach of the warranty of habitability arising out of Jackson’s brief period of time living in Larkspur Place Apartments owned by Read & Sons. Jackson contended that a damp rug in the bathroom that was immediately repaired and a small patch of mold discovered over four months later caused her physical and emotional injuries. However, Jackson admitted in her deposition that she did not suffer any physical injury and her treating physician’s deposition testimony also demonstrated that Jackson’s complaints were not related to any mold exposure, but rather ongoing gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
In opposing Read’s motion for summary judgment, Jackson argued that under Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 916-919, she only needed to establish “intangible emotional injuries,” such as annoyance or discomfort, in order to establish a causal link between her alleged injuries and the alleged mold exposure. She argued that her fear of future injuries and annoyance during the repairs of the alleged defects were sufficient to establish causation. However, the trial court found that her fear of injuries from mold exposure were not reasonable, due to her knowledge of her previous medical history of GERD and IBS. The trial court granted summary judgment, stating that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the alleged mold exposure and Jackson’s alleged injuries.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on other grounds, finding that there was insufficient evidence that Read had breached the warranty of habitability. The appellate court noted that Read remedied the alleged defects quickly after they were reported and, in doing so, did not deprive Jackson of the “bare living requirements” required by Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616, 637.
|
