Bushnell Landscape Ind. v. Grover Landscape Serv. CA3
C069821
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 26, 2013Background
- Bushnell purchased rice hulls from Grover in 2007 and used them in potting soil for nursery stock.
- The rice hulls were contaminated with toxic levels of copper, killing or forcing disposal of substantial plant inventory within two years.
- Bushnell sued Grover asserting negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, and breach of implied warranty; some claims dropped before trial.
- Jury found Grover liable for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty, not negligent misrepresentation; on negligence the jury apportioned fault 75% Grover / 25% Bushnell.
- Jury awarded $1.33 million as total damages and was told not to reduce the amount for plaintiff fault (court would make reductions if necessary).
- Bushnell elected to proceed to judgment on its contract and warranty claims (not the negligence claim); trial court refused Grover’s request to reduce the $1.33 million award by 25% for comparative fault; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on contract/warranty claims must be reduced for plaintiff's comparative fault found on negligence verdict | Bushnell: election of contract/warranty remedies was proper; comparative fault does not apply to contract/warranty recovery | Grover: jury’s allocation (25% plaintiff fault) shows intent to reduce award; judgment must conform to verdict | Court: Affirmed. Comparative fault does not apply to contract or warranty claims; trial court properly honored Bushnell’s election of remedies |
| Whether election of remedies doctrine applied where jury did not decide inconsistent remedies | Bushnell: election appropriate because remedies are inconsistent (tort would allow reduction; contract would not) | Grover: doctrine not applicable because jury was never asked to consider inconsistent remedies and defendant didn’t plead election as an affirmative defense | Court: Election doctrine applies; plaintiff must choose between inconsistent remedies and Bushnell validly elected contract/warranty remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co., 69 Cal.2d 452 (discusses when a verdict represents gross vs. net damages and trial court duty to conform judgment to clear jury intent)
- Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 23 Cal.4th 390 (establishes that comparative fault does not apply to contract claims)
- Shaffer v. Debbas, 17 Cal.App.4th 33 (holds comparative negligence is not a defense to breach of express warranty)
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (sets out California comparative negligence principles applicable to tort recovery)
- Denevi v. LGCC, LLC, 121 Cal.App.4th 1211 (explains the election of remedies doctrine and when a plaintiff must choose between inconsistent remedies)