## Facts

- David and Eliza Heninger owned mountain land; Bernard and Elise Dunn owned adjoining mountain land.
- In April 1971, the Dunns bulldozed a rough road about seven-tenths of a mile long across the Heningers’ property over the Heningers’ objections.
- The Dunns acted in reliance on an attorney’s mistaken advice that they had an easement permitting the road.
- The bulldozing killed or damaged about 225 trees and destroyed substantial vegetative undergrowth.
- The road increased access and increased the Heningers’ property’s market value by $5,000 (from $179,000 to $184,000).
- The trial court found restoration was technically possible, estimating $221,647 to replace dead/dying trees and $19,610 to restore undergrowth.
- The Heningers preferred to keep the land in a natural, forested state and viewed the road and tree destruction as a serious interference with their use and enjoyment.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may recover restoration damages for trespass-caused physical injury to land when the property’s market value did not decrease (and increased).
2. Whether diminution in market value is an absolute cap on damages for injury to real property under California Civil Code § 3333.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment to the extent it denied damages and remanded.
- The court held diminution in market value is not an absolute limitation on recovery for tortious injury to real property.
- The court ruled that reasonable restoration costs may be recoverable when the owner has a bona fide personal reason to restore the property and restoration is not grossly disproportionate under the circumstances.
- The trial court erred by categorically denying damages based solely on the absence of market-value depreciation.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Civil Code § 3333, damages for torts must compensate for all detriment proximately caused.
- For injury to real property, diminution in market value is a common measure, but not a rigid ceiling.
- Cost of repair or restoration may be an appropriate measure when market value does not reflect the owner’s actual loss (including aesthetic and personal-use interests).
- Restoration damages are limited by reasonableness; they may be denied or reduced if grossly disproportionate to the harm and the property’s character, considering all circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court required reassessment of damages under a flexible compensatory standard, permitting restoration damages for trespass to land even where market value increased, so long as the owner’s restoration interest is genuine and the costs awarded are reasonable in context.


Heninger v. Dunn, 101 Cal. App. 3d 858, 162 Cal. Rptr. 104 (Ct. App. 1980)