PLOTNIK V. MEIHAUS 146 Cal.Rptr. 3d 585 (2012) CASE BRIEF

PLOTNIK V. MEIHAUS

146 Cal.Rptr. 3d 585 (2012)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Meihaus (D) appealed a decision that awarded Plotnik (P) emotional distress damages when D injured P's dog.

FACTS: P and their two children moved into a home in 2003. The rear portion of the property abutted D's lot with a three-foot-high fence. P began to have problems with the D family. P built a six-foot-high fence and D sued P and the community association. That lawsuit was resolved by a written agreement as P agreed to relocate the rear fence, moving it three feet back from the common boundary. The new fence has a gate that allows P access to the portion of their property on the opposite side of the fence. After the settlement, P had continuing problems with D. D used the space between the fence and his property to throw yard clippings and trash. Also D gave P the finger every time P passed D jogging on the street. P also discovered a portion of their side yard fence closest to D's lot had been cut and two nearby trees had been damaged. On April 9, 2009. P went to the backyard and began photographing yard clippings. Romeo, the family's 12- to 15-pound, 12-inch-tall miniature pinscher was with him. P heard loud banging against the opposite side of the rear fence. When he opened the gate, Romeo ran into D's backyard. P assumed the dog ran to the front of their residence. He returned to his lot and began walking along the adjacent public street. P heard Romeo barking and then squeal. He hurried home, arriving in time to see Romeo roll down the slope through the open gate and hit a tree. P saw D holding a bat, returning to his house. P confronted D, and D denied striking the dog. Romeo needed surgery to repair his right rear leg. The surgery cost $2,600 and Joyce Plotnik paid another $209.53 for a stroller to help Romeo get around after the surgery. P returned to the backyard to take more pictures and Greg Meihaus and John Meihaus III, both of whom were in their 20's, came out of the house and confronted him. They rushed P and verbally abused him and threatened to kill the dog. P sued D and D crossclaimed. The jury found D intentionally harmed Romeo. It awarded P damages of $2,600 for economic loss and $20,000 for emotional distress. In addition, the jury awarded Joyce Plotnik economic damages of $209.53 and emotional distress damages of $30,000. The jury awarded emotional distress damages of $16,150 to P and $30,000 to P's wife. In all total, the trial court entered judgment on the jury's special verdicts, awarding P a total award of $175,600. The judgment awarded Joyce Plotnik $255,209.53 against D. Ps accepted remittitur. An amended judgment was entered reducing the overall awards by $30,000 as to P and $50,000 as to Joyce Plotnik. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner