21 Cal. App. 5th 786
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Simona Wilson bought a house adjacent to Edison’s Topaz electrical substation; after a 2011 bathroom remodel she and others perceived tingling/shocks in the shower due to neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV)/stray voltage.
- Edison measured low-voltage NEV on the property, recommended remedial measures (isolators, bonding, off-peak use), and ultimately installed isolators and a dedicated transformer for later owners; isolators later eliminated perceptible voltage for subsequent occupants at a cost of about $5,000.
- Wilson moved out, alleged the stray voltage substantially interfered with her use and enjoyment of the property, and sued Edison for negligence, IIED, nuisance, and punitive damages; first trial verdict favored Wilson but this court reversed negligence/IIED/punitive and remanded nuisance (Wilson I).
- On retrial the court excluded some—but allowed much—evidence of prior stray-voltage incidents at the house and in the neighborhood; the jury again found for Wilson on nuisance and awarded $1.2 million.
- Edison appealed, arguing (inter alia) it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because public utility benefit outweighed harm, and that admission of extensive prior-incident evidence was prejudicial; Wilson cross-appealed denial of attorney fees under CCP §1021.5.
- The Court of Appeal: (1) rejected Edison’s JMOL argument (issue for jury remains); (2) held the trial court erred by admitting largely irrelevant prior-owners/other-properties evidence and that error was prejudicial; (3) reversed and remanded for retrial on nuisance; (4) dismissed Wilson’s fee cross-appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edison was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the public benefit of providing electricity outweighs Wilson’s harm | Wilson framed the nuisance as the ongoing presence of stray voltage on her property (not limited to perceptible shocks) and argued that fear, interference with property use, and limits on future remodeling are cognizable harms | Edison argued the alleged harm was merely a slight tingling perceptible only at times and that that minor harm cannot outweigh the public benefit of supplying electricity | Court: JMOL denied. Whether harm outweighs public benefit is a factual balancing for the jury; evidence could support substantial interference beyond momentary tingling |
| Admissibility of evidence about stray-voltage incidents involving prior owners/tenants or other properties | Wilson argued such evidence bore on notice, existence of a nuisance, causation, and her reasons for refusing Edison’s remedial offers | Edison argued those incidents were irrelevant to a private-nuisance claim that requires interference during plaintiff’s ownership and admission was prejudicial | Court: Most of that evidence was irrelevant; trial court erred in admitting it. Error was prejudicial because counsel repeatedly relied on history and the jury was closely divided; reversal and retrial ordered |
| Whether the damages verdict was infected by jury misconduct or included improper elements (e.g., house value, credit damage, attorney fees) | Wilson did not contest that the verdict reflected her claimed losses but sought to uphold the award | Edison submitted juror declarations asserting the jury considered improper items and reached an excessive award; sought new trial | Court: Did not reach merits of these claims because reversal on evidentiary error required retrial; trial court’s denial of new-trial motion not reviewed further here |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under CCP §1021.5 for creating published precedent (Wilson I) | Wilson argued she conferred a significant public benefit by resolving whether the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over stray-voltage claims and that litigation costs exceeded her personal stake | Edison opposed; trial court denied fees, finding Wilson had a personal financial stake sufficient to pursue the case | Court: Cross-appeal moot after reversal; fee ruling not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co., 234 Cal.App.4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (prior published opinion resolving PUC jurisdiction and remanding nuisance claim)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996) (private nuisance elements and balancing test explained)
- College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (Cal. 1994) (standard for reversal based on evidentiary prejudice)
- Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2005) (definition of "reasonable probability" in harmful-error analysis)
- Koll‑Irvine Ctr. Prop. Owners Assn. v. County of Orange, 24 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (limitations on nuisance claims based solely on fear of future injury)
- McIvor v. Mercer‑Fraser Co., 76 Cal.App.2d 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946) (apprehension of injury can support nuisance where it interferes with enjoyment of property)