Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)

Citation
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Parent Document
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1980-02-05

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text

1,062 chars
Nuisance liability is not precluded by the existence of a contractual relationship between the tenant and landlord. It is hornbook law that an act that constitutes a breach of contract may also be tortious. In Jones v. Kelly (1929) 208 Cal. 251 [280 P. 942], tenants husband and wife sued their landlord in tort for allegedly cutting off the tenants’ water supply, seeking both actual and exemplary damages. In reversing the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the Supreme Court pointed out at page 255 that “‘every person is bound without contract to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his rights,’” citing Civil Code section 1708. This duty is independent of the contract and attaches over and above its terms; thus, the tenants may treat the injury to their tenancy as a tort or as a breach of contract at their election (208 Cal. at *920p. 255). “That [tenants] have a proprietary interest in the [leased] premises which goes by the name of estate is not open for debate.” (Ibid.)