Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co.
California Court of Appeal
10 Cal. App. 5th 590, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 794 (2017)
- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Lambirth Trucking Company (Lambirth) (defendant) allowed wood chips and other debris to accumulate on its property. This debris sometimes blew onto adjacent property owned by Vincent Scholes (plaintiff). On May 12, 2007, a fire broke out on Lambirth’s property. Scholes complained about the debris. On May 21, another fire broke out on Lambirth’s property, this time spreading to Scholes’s property and causing damage. On May 21, 2010, Scholes sued Lambirth. Scholes’s original complaint indicated that it involved a dispute regarding insurance compensation. The original complaint alleged that Lambirth had accepted liability for a fire but disputed damages. The original complaint did not identify the property involved or the incident date, nor did it specify any cause of action beyond checking the box for property damage. On November 10, 2011, Scholes filed a third amended complaint alleging claims for negligent trespass, intentional trespass, and trespass through unnatural activity. Lambirth demurred, arguing that Scholes’s claims were time-barred. Scholes opposed the motion, arguing that the third amended complaint was not time-barred because it related back to his original complaint. The trial court sustained Lambirth’s demurrer without leave to amend. Scholes appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Raye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
