Sprecher v. Adamson Companies
30 Cal.3d 358, 178 Cal. Rptr. 783, 636 P.2d 783 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to persons outside their land from natural conditions on the land, abrogating the common law immunity for natural conditions.
Facts:
- South Winter Mesa Associates owns a 90-acre parcel of land in Malibu, California.
- Peter Sprecher owns a home on a parcel of land adjacent to and downhill from the South Winter Mesa Associates property.
- The South Winter Mesa Associates' parcel contains part of a large, active, and natural landslide which has been known to exist since the early 1900s.
- Sprecher's property is situated within the toe of this natural landslide.
- The landslide is a natural condition, and its state has not been affected by any activities conducted by South Winter Mesa Associates.
- In March 1978, heavy spring rains triggered a major movement of the landslide.
- This landslide movement caused significant damage to Sprecher's home, causing it to rotate and press against a neighboring house.
Procedural Posture:
- Gwendolyn Sexton sued Peter Sprecher in the trial court to enjoin the encroachment of his home onto hers.
- Sprecher filed a cross-complaint in the trial court against South Winter Mesa Associates, seeking damages for the harm to his home.
- South Winter Mesa Associates moved for summary judgment in the trial court, arguing that a landowner has no duty to remedy a natural condition to prevent harm to property off the premises.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of South Winter Mesa Associates.
- Sprecher (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a possessor of land have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to persons outside their land from natural conditions on the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Bird, C. J.
Yes, a possessor of land has a duty to act reasonably in managing their property to avoid causing harm to others, regardless of whether the harm is threatened by a natural or an artificial condition. The court rejects the old common law rule that immunized landowners from liability for harm caused by natural conditions, finding it inconsistent with modern tort principles and California's fundamental policy that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care in managing property. The court applies the factors from Rowland v. Christian and determines they do not support a wholesale immunity based on the origin of a hazard. Instead, liability should be determined by whether the landowner's conduct was reasonable under all the circumstances, making the issue a question of fact for the jury.
Concurring - Richardson, J.
Yes, a landowner should be required to act reasonably with reference to their property, regardless of whether a condition threatening injury is artificial or natural. However, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine what the respondents in this specific case could have reasonably done to prevent or reduce damage from a massive, ancient, and active landslide triggered by heavy rains. Despite this skepticism about the factual merits, the appellant should be entitled to try and prove before a fact-finder that the respondents' conduct was unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision eliminates the long-standing common law distinction between artificial and natural conditions for landowner liability in California, a significant departure from traditional tort doctrine. It brings the law for off-premises injuries in line with the court's reasoning in Rowland v. Christian, which abolished status-based distinctions for on-premises injuries. Consequently, landowners can no longer claim automatic immunity for harm caused by natural phenomena like landslides, falling trees, or soil subsidence. Future cases will focus on the reasonableness of the landowner's actions or inactions, shifting the legal inquiry from the origin of the hazard to the foreseeability of harm and the burden of prevention.
Unlock the full brief for Sprecher v. Adamson Companies