This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Landlord and Tenant
Habitability

Peter Wright, Armano Rascon v. William Beck, William Retallick, Dawn Retallick

Published: Nov. 19, 2005 | Result Date: Jun. 24, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CGC04432935 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Paul H. Alvarado

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Aaron P. Minnis
(Minnis & Smallets LLP)

David J. Mattingly


Defendant

Kevin K. Cholakian
(Cholakian & Associates)


Experts

Plaintiff

Peggy Kivel
(technical)

Richard J. Devine
(technical)

Vincent A. Marinkovich
(medical)

Defendant

Eric Brown
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney) (technical)

Janet S. Weiss
(medical)

John F. Sampson
(technical)

Peter Goodman
(technical)

Facts

In 1992, Peter Wright and Armando Rascon leased space in a historic building located at 165 Jessie St. in San
Francisco. The owners of the property were William Beck and William and Dawn Retallick. The property in
question was commercial property. In 1993, Wright and Rascon leased another floor in the same building.
They converted this space from commercial use to residential use by constructing a living area and kitchen, and
by installing a washing machine and dryer. Thereafter, Wright and Rascon sued Beck and the Retallicks after a
serious mold problem developed in their unit. By trial, the causes of action that remained were for premises
liability, private nuisance, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and intentional misrepresentation.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought $100,000 in economic damages and $500,000 in non-economic damages.

Injuries

The plaintiffs claimed that the mold exposure caused them to suffer from migraine headaches, rashes, stomach problems, and other ailments. A defense medical expert testified that one of the plaintiff's health problems were actually caused by his pre-existing asthma and tuberculosis as opposed to the mold problem.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict for the defendants

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

12-0 (intentional misrepresentation), 12-0 (private nuisance), 11-1 (premises liability), 12-0 (breach of implied warranty of habitability)

Length

11 days


#104165

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390