Beronio v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Citations

• 86 Cal. 415
• 24 P. 1093
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1044

Syllabus

<p>Former Adjudication — Eminent Domain — Construction of Railway — Judgment for Partial Damages —■ Continued Operation of Road. — A judgment for damages to an abutting lot, caused by the construction of a railway along the street, is a bar to an action for damages to another abutting lot, owned by the same party, two hundred and sixty feet distant from the first lot, arising from the same cause, and accruing at the same time, and prior to the filing of the complaint in the first action; nor is he entitled to recover for the continued operation of the - railroad after the judgment in the former action, where the evidence shows no damages accruing after that date.</p> <p>Id. — Splitting Cause of Action — Injury to Several Parcels Forms Single Tort. — In cases of tort, the question as to the number of causes of action which the same person may have turns upon the number of torts, and not upon the number of different pieces of property which may have been injured thereby. Each separate tort gives a separate cause of action, and but a single one, and whenever by one act a permanent injury is done to several pieces of property, the damages are assessed once for all, and the cause of action is wholly merged in a recovery of damages for injury to one of the parcels.</p> <p>Id. — Subsequent Construction of Side-track.—Where the owner of the lots claimed that he was entitled to recover for the damages to his lot, involved in the first suit, by reason of the construction and operation of a switch and side-track since the judgment in the first action, and the court ruled in his favor in that regard, but he failed to prove any damages accruing specially by reason of such construction, a verdict in favor of the railroad company will not be disturbed.</p> <p>Amendment of Answer at Triad — Discretion. — It is not an abuse of the discretion of the court to permit an answer to be amended after the jury is impaneled, where it does not appear that the plaintiff was taken by surprise,