## Facts

- Wing H. Don and his wife bought a commercially zoned vacant lot in the City of Campbell on February 21, 1957, intending to build a supermarket but postponing construction for financial reasons.
- Trojan Construction Co., developing a nearby subdivision, directed its subcontractor, Keeble Construction Co., to deposit excavated dirt on the lot during June–July 1957.
- Trojan’s manager testified he believed a prior owner’s representative had consented and claimed he did not know the Dons owned the lot until litigation.
- In August 1957, Trojan advertised “free dirt,” and members of the public removed dirt from the lot; substantial dirt remained as late as March 1958 but was gone by the end of that month.
- The Dons sued on November 26, 1957, alleging unauthorized placement of large quantities of dirt on their land.
- After a bench trial, the court found defendants wrongfully occupied the lot and found an average rental value of $550 per month during the occupation, but awarded only $200 as “nominal damages.”

## Issues

1. Whether damages for wrongful occupation of land may be measured by the property’s reasonable rental value during the occupation when the owner would not have rented the property.
2. Whether an owner’s subjective intention not to rent limits recovery to nominal damages for wrongful occupation.
3. Whether the pleadings or any election of remedies barred recovery of substantial damages based on rental value.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the nominal-damages judgment.
- It held plaintiffs were entitled to substantial damages measured by the reasonable rental value of the lot for the period of defendants’ wrongful occupation.
- It rejected limiting damages based on plaintiffs’ stated unwillingness to rent.
- It remanded for further proceedings to enter an award consistent with the rental-value finding and the proper measure of damages.

## Legal Principles

- For wrongful occupation or trespassory use of land, a proper measure of damages is the reasonable rental value (value of the use) during the period of occupation.
- Damages focus on the objective value of the use taken and the deprivation of exclusive possession, not on the owner’s subjective plans or willingness to rent.
- A mistaken belief of consent from someone other than the true owner does not eliminate liability for wrongful occupation or justify restricting damages to a nominal amount.
- A trial court’s finding of substantial rental value and extended use cannot be reconciled with an award expressly characterized as nominal when rental value is ascertainable.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that wrongful occupation of a vacant commercial lot supports substantial damages measured by the lot’s reasonable rental value for the period of occupation, even if the owners would not have rented the property, and it reversed and remanded because a nominal award was inconsistent with the trial court’s rental-value findings.


Don v. Trojan Constr. Co., 178 Cal. App. 2d 135, 2 Cal. Rptr. 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)