Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Court

In Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 256, the court reviewed suits by customers of certain water companies. The suits alleged the companies had, for many years, supplied the customers with water that did not meet the government's water quality standards and the commission's standards for water quality service, resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also, in effect, challenged the adequacy of the standards. The court ruled that while the challenge to the standards themselves was barred because it attempted to interfere with a broad regulatory program of the commission, the portion of the suit seeking damages for the defendants' alleged failure to meet water quality standards was not barred by section 1759. (Id. at pp. 275-279.) The court observed that any redress of alleged violations that the commission itself might pursue would be "essentially prospective in nature" because the statutory remedies the commission can seek are "designed to stop the utilities from engaging in current and ongoing violations and do not redress injuries for past wrongs." (Hartwell, 27 Cal. 4th at p. 277.) The court stated that because the commission cannot award damages for past violations, the plaintiffs' causes of action for damages "would not interfere with the commission in implementing its supervisory and regulatory policies to prevent future harm." (Ibid.) The commission made an investigation of water companies, including the defendant water companies in that suit, after the plaintiffs filed the suit charging personal injuries from unsafe drinking water. Such investigation caused the commission to make a retrospective finding that the water companies had, for the previous 25 years, substantially complied with the drinking water standards of California's State Department of Health Services. Nevertheless, the Hartwell court said the finding was not part of an "identifiable 'broad and continuing supervisory or regulatory program of the commission' , related to such routine commission proceedings as ratemaking" and rulemaking; nor was the commission's determination part of an enforcement proceeding. (Id. at pp. 276-277.) Thus, said the court, although an award by a jury, supported by a finding that the defendants did violate governmental water quality standards, would be contrary to the commission's own decision, "it would not hinder or frustrate the commission's declared supervisory and regulatory policies, and under the provisions of section 1759, it would also not constitute a direct review, reversal, correction, or annulment of the decision itself. Accordingly, such a jury verdict would not be barred by the statute." (Hartwell, 27 Cal. 4th at pp. 277-278.) Additionally, said the court, although a commission finding of past compliance, or noncompliance, might be part of a future remedial/regulatory program, such program would not be interfered with by the plaintiffs' suit since the remedies and enforcement options available to the commission do not include awarding damages to persons harmed by water companies that did not comply with drinking water standards. (Hartwell, at p. 277.)