Plotnik v. Meihaus
208 Cal. App. 4th 1590
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plotniks and Meihaus neighbors; settlement in 2007 required fence relocation and mutual restraint; mutual release of claims and attorney-fee provision.
- Post-settlement conduct included debris on Plotniks’ yard, harassment gestures, and a pool-area encounter where Meihaus watched Plotniks for 20 minutes.
- Dog Romeo was injured when Meihaus struck him with a bat; Romeo required surgery and Plotniks incurred costs.
- April 9, 2009 confrontation between Plotnik and Meihaus brothers included threats and insults; jury awarded various damages on multiple theories.
- Trial court entered judgments totaling about $175,600 to Plotniks and $255,209.53 to Joyce Plotnik; remittitur reduced some damages; attorney fees awarded on contract claim.
- Appellate court affirmed some awards, reversed others (notably certain emotional-distress awards), and modified the judgments on remittitur and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract damages sufficiency | Meihaus breached the mutual restraint clause; damages for mental distress may apply. | Emotional distress not ordinarily recoverable in contract; damages excessive. | Yes, damages for emotional distress allowed; not excessive under evidence; Joyce’s breach did not bar her recovery. |
| Assault verdict against Greg Meihaus and John Meihaus III | Brothers’ conduct included threats and close approach supporting assault. | No weapon or immediate contact; not an assault. | Reversed; insufficient for assault against Plotnik. |
| Trespass to personal property and emotional distress from injuring Romeo | Emotional distress damages recoverable; dog is personal property; costs for care recoverable. | Emotional distress not recoverable for pet injury; only economic damages. | Economic damages affirmed; emotional-distress damages recoverable for trespass to personal property; negligence-based emotional distress reversed. |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress damages | Liability for NIED against all defendants supported by duty and foreseeability. | No duty owed; NIED not recoverable here. | NIED damages reversed for all defendants. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress and duplicative damages | Some conduct could support IIED; multiple theories yield separate damages. | Duplicative damages for same event violate primary-right doctrine. | IIED damages against Meihaus reversed; duplicative recovery rejected; remaining valid IIED claims limited to other upheld grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. McConnell, 80 Cal. 545 (Cal. 1889) (dog owner's emotional distress historically recognized)
- McMahon v. Craig, 176 Cal.App.4th 1502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (emotional distress not recoverable for negligent treatment of pet; distinguishable from trespass/intentional torts)
- Zaslow v. Kroenert, 29 Cal.2d 541 (Cal. 1946) (trespass to personal property; damages limited to impairment or loss of use)
- Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (Cal. 2003) (trespass to chattels; electronic communications distinctly limited)
- Shell v. Schmidt, 126 Cal.App.2d 279 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1954) (avoidance of duplicative damages when multiple theories confuse recovery)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994) (primary-right doctrine; single recovery per distinct damage item)
- Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal.4th 1150 (Cal. 1993) (double recovery prohibition; single relief per injury)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) (duality of theories; avoid extra recoveries)