Vanderpol v. Starr

In Vanderpol v. Starr (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 385, the Vanderpols sued the Starrs for nuisance, alleging that their planting and maintenance of trees on their common property line constituted a spite fence under Civil Code section 841.1, entitling them to damages and an injunction. In answer to a special verdict form, the jury made findings that the Starrs maliciously maintained trees exceeding 10 feet in height in order to annoy the Vanderpols. However, the jury "was never asked to determine whether the Vanderpols sustained injury in their 'comfort or the enjoyment of their estate by such nuisance' as required by the plain language of section 841.1." (Id. at p. 394.) The court concluded that the special verdict form was defective on its face. (Id. at p. 396.) It rejected the Vanderpols' suggestion that the appellate court could imply the necessary finding of injury: "Unlike a general verdict (which merely implies findings on all issues in favor of the plaintiff or defendant), a special verdict presents to the jury each ultimate fact in the case. The jury must resolve all of the ultimate facts presented to it in the special verdict, so that 'nothing shall remain to the court but to draw from them conclusions of law.' (Code Civ. Proc., 624.) The requirement that the jury must resolve every controverted issue is one of the recognized pitfalls of special verdicts. 'The possibility of a defective or incomplete special verdict, or possibly no verdict at all, is much greater than with a general verdict that is tested by special findings. . . .' " (Id. at p. 396.) Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial. (Id. at p. 396, 398.) Vanderpol v. Starr stands for a simple proposition: If an essential element of a plaintiff's cause of action is omitted from a special verdict form, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.