Keys rule in California

2016(Keys, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 410 .) But SoCal's arguments fail nevertheless because they depend on Glick's excluded opinions and statements as to sandbagging.

2015(Pagliotti, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 874 [reversed lower court’s ruling granting upper landowners’ request to enjoin lower owner from maintaining dam across property and remanded for trial court to make finding on the reasonableness of defendant’s conduct in accordance with the rule set forth in Keys, supra, 64 Cal.2d 396 ]; Gdowski, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1398 [trial court committed prejudicial error when it refused to instruct on Keys test of reasonableness and instead “instructed the jury using general principles of negligence and contributory negligence”].) Pinole Point also maintains t

2016Today a landowner's conduct in using or altering the property in a manner which affects the discharge of surface waters onto adjacent property is subject to a test of reasonableness." (Id. at p. 351.) In reaching its decision, Locklin agreed with Ektelon v. City of San Diego, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 804 , Weaver v. Bishop, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 , and other courts that had held the Keys rule "applicable to all conduct by landowners in their disposition of surface water runoff whether the waters are discharged onto the land of an adjoining owner or into a natural watercourse . . . . " (Lockli

2016Today a landowner's conduct in using or altering the property in a manner which affects the discharge of surface waters onto adjacent property is subject to a test of reasonableness." (Id. at p. 351.) In reaching its decision, Locklin agreed with Ektelon v. City of San Diego, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 804 , Weaver v. Bishop, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 , and other courts that had held the Keys rule "applicable to all conduct by landowners in their disposition of surface water runoff whether the waters are discharged onto the land of an adjoining owner or into a natural watercourse . . . . " (Lockli

2016Today a landowner's conduct in using or altering the property in a manner which affects the discharge of surface waters onto adjacent property is subject to a test of reasonableness." (Id. at p. 351.) In reaching its decision, Locklin agreed with Ektelon v. City of San Diego, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 804 , Weaver v. Bishop, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 , and other courts that had held the Keys rule "applicable to all conduct by landowners in their disposition of surface water runoff whether the waters are discharged onto the land of an adjoining owner or into a natural watercourse . . . . " (Lockli

2016Today a landowner's conduct in using or altering the property in a manner which affects the discharge of surface waters onto adjacent property is subject to a test of reasonableness." (Id. at p. 351.) In reaching its decision, Locklin agreed with Ektelon v. City of San Diego, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 804 , Weaver v. Bishop, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 1351 , and other courts that had held the Keys rule "applicable to all conduct by landowners in their disposition of surface water runoff whether the waters are discharged onto the land of an adjoining owner or into a natural watercourse . . . . " (Lockli

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015(See, e.g., Whalen v. Ruiz (1953) 40 Cal.2d 294 [ 253 P.2d 457 ].) Reinsch v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 613 ]; Conklin v. Goodson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 823 [ 271 P.2d 147 ]; It concludes that “any acquisition of prescriptive rights by the County to continue using the Drainage Channel after 1979 could not shift the duty to maintain the Drainage Channel” to Pinole Point.

2015In Koontz, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1041 , the defendant, in front of a third party witness, drew a gun on the victim, asked for the victim’s car keys, and shot *171 the victim.

2001The key point of departure from the [earlier] rules is that the reasonable use rule treats the issue of surface waters as a question of tort law instead of property law." (6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d. ed.2000) § 14.21, com., p. 52.) [3] See, for example, DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 338 , 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 16 , where the appellate court found no evidence that the city was involved in the construction, design, supervision of construction or maintenance of the underground pipe, or was even aware of the pipe.

2001The key point of departure from the [earlier] rules is that the reasonable use rule treats the issue of surface waters as a question of tort law instead of property law." (6 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d. ed.2000) § 14.21, com., p. 52.) [3] See, for example, DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 338 , 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 16 , where the appellate court found no evidence that the city was involved in the construction, design, supervision of construction or maintenance of the underground pipe, or was even aware of the pipe.

2001After Locklin , if all parties acted reasonably, the downstream owner could not recover for its damage. ( Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 360-361, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 , 867 P.2d 724 .) [6] Town raises a third situation: When alterations to an uphill property lead to a discharge of surface water onto nonadjacent property, because the "natural topography allows [the] water to entirely circumvent contiguous property." Town concedes that the Keys analysis would apply in these circumstances, confirming the wisdom of applying it in the instant case. [7] Because we conclude Lombard was entitled to in

2001After Locklin , if all parties acted reasonably, the downstream owner could not recover for its damage. ( Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 360-361, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 , 867 P.2d 724 .) [6] Town raises a third situation: When alterations to an uphill property lead to a discharge of surface water onto nonadjacent property, because the "natural topography allows [the] water to entirely circumvent contiguous property." Town concedes that the Keys analysis would apply in these circumstances, confirming the wisdom of applying it in the instant case. [7] Because we conclude Lombard was entitled to in