|
4505 REVIEW DENIED An action for subsurface trespass based on the allegation that waste water defendant dumped and is continuing to dump in unlined storage ponds is polluting the aquifer under plaintiff’s land is an action for continuing trespass, so the statute of limitations begins to run every instant that it continues; damages may include restoration costs that are found to be reasonable, based on balancing monetary expense, burden on the public, and value of the land; if restoration costs are found to be unreasonable, diminution in the value of plaintiff’s land may be used as a measure of damages; plaintiff may also recover profits defendant realized as a direct result of the trespass.CitationSTARRH v AERA (Polluted Aquifer) 153 CA4 583 [See: CivC 3334; Beck v Southern Pacific 44 CA4 1160, T/AT 5/96; Mangini v Aerojet 12 C4 1087, T/AT 5/96]
|
|
