## Facts

- The Steins’ Santa Barbara home was heavily damaged by a fire that concentrated at the electric service meter area.
- A fire investigator concluded the fire originated at the meter panel and was electrical in origin, caused by a fault outside the house.
- Power to the home ran from high-voltage lines through a pole-mounted transformer stepping down to household voltage, then through service drop lines to the weatherhead, meter, and main service/meter panel.
- The Steins’ theory and expert evidence attributed the fire to a transformer failure: Edison had disabled internal circuit breakers so the transformer could operate at 200–220% capacity, degrading insulation and causing an electrical arc that sent high voltage into the meter, which exploded and started the fire.
- Edison disputed overvoltage and presented expert testimony attributing the fire to an electrical fault in the home’s internal wiring.
- A jury found for the Steins and awarded $390,290.72 in damages; the trial court also awarded $43,645.24 in prejudgment interest from the date Edison received notice of the claimed damages.

## Issues

1. Whether strict products liability may be submitted to the jury against a public utility for property damage allegedly caused by its electrical distribution equipment (transformer/meter system).
2. Whether prejudgment interest was properly awarded under California Civil Code § 3287 based on damages being “certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation.”
3. Whether plaintiffs could obtain additional prejudgment interest from the date of loss under California Civil Code § 3288 based on a tort theory raised on appeal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Steins.
- The court held it was not error to allow the jury to consider strict products liability based on alleged defects in the utility’s distribution apparatus and evidence that the apparatus malfunctioned and caused the fire.
- The court affirmed the prejudgment interest award under Civil Code § 3287 from the date Edison received notice, rejecting Edison’s claim that damages were too uncertain for such an award.
- The court rejected the Steins’ cross-appeal seeking interest from the date of the fire under Civil Code § 3288, concluding the argument was not properly preserved in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Utility-owned electrical distribution equipment may be treated as a “product” for strict products liability when evidence supports that a defective condition in the equipment caused property damage.
- Civil Code § 3287 authorizes prejudgment interest as of right from the date damages become “certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation,” including when the defendant can ascertain the loss from notice and available information.
- Civil Code § 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest in tort actions, but a party generally must timely present and preserve the theory and requested timing in the trial court rather than raising it for the first time on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict imposing strict products liability on an electric utility for a fire allegedly caused by defective, modified distribution equipment and upheld prejudgment interest from the date the utility had notice of the damages, while refusing to extend the interest period based on an unpreserved tort-interest theory.


Stein v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 7 Cal. App. 4th 565, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907 (Ct. App. 1992)