AB 328

  • California Assembly Bill
  • 2011-2012 Regular Session
  • Introduced in Assembly
  • Passed Assembly Mar 29, 2011
  • Senate
  • Governor

Inverse condemnation: comparative fault.

Abstract

(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding, in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking. The bill would make these provisions applicable only to inverse condemnation actions filed on or after January 1, 2013. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action filed on or after January 1, 2013, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.

Bill Sponsors (1)

Votes


Actions


Jan 24, 2012

Senate

From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  • Reading-2
  • Amendment-Introduction
  • Reading-1
  • Amendment-Passage
  • Referral-Committee
Com. on JUD.

Jun 30, 2011

Senate

In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

May 12, 2011

Senate

Referred to Com. on JUD.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on JUD.

Mar 29, 2011

Assembly

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 725.)

Senate

In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Mar 16, 2011

Assembly

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Mar 15, 2011

Assembly

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 15).

Feb 24, 2011

Assembly

Referred to Com. on JUD.

  • Referral-Committee
Com. on JUD.

Feb 11, 2011

Assembly

From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.

Feb 10, 2011

Assembly

Read first time. To print.

Bill Text

Bill Text Versions Format
AB328 HTML
02/10/11 - Introduced PDF
01/24/12 - Amended Senate PDF

Related Documents

Document Format
No related documents.

Sources

Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature.

If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.