Plotnik v. Meihaus
California Court of Appeal
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585, 208 Cal.App.4th 1590 (2012)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
David and Joyce Plotnik (plaintiffs) lived next to John Meihaus, Jr. (defendant). The relationship between the Plotniks and Meihaus was contentious. The Plotniks built a fence to separate their properties, but Meihaus sued over the location of the fence. The Plotniks agreed to move the fence to settle the lawsuit. Meihaus then threw trash and yard clippings over the fence onto the Plotniks’ property on several occasions. The Plotniks began documenting these events by taking photographs of the trash and yard waste. Other incidents between the parties included Meihaus giving the Plotnik family the middle finger while out jogging on several occasions. On April 9, 2009, David Plotnik was in his yard investigating more trash. The family dog, Romeo, was also in the yard. Romeo was a 12 to 15 pound, 12-inch-tall miniature pinscher. David heard banging on the other side of the fence, and he opened the gate. Romeo ran over into Meihaus’s property. Meihaus then struck Romeo with a baseball bat, and Romeo returned to the Plotniks’ property. Romeo eventually needed surgery to repair one of his legs. The Plotniks sued Meihaus for trespass to personal property based on the injury to Romeo. The jury awarded damages of approximately $50,000 to the Plotniks for economic loss and for emotional distress. Meihaus appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rylaarsdam, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
