[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/water-losses-pain-suffering-damages\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/water-losses-pain-suffering-damages\/","headline":"Water Losses: Pain &#038; Suffering Damages","name":"Water Losses: Pain &#038; Suffering Damages","description":"Most states do not allow pain and suffering damages for property losses. Oregon is an exception. In\u00a0Edwards v Talent Irrigation District,\u00a0280 Or. 307, 309, 570 P.2d 1169 (1977), defendant\u2019s negligent acts caused water from their irrigation ditch to flood the plaintiff\u2019s property. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for \u201cmental anguish\u201d as a result of...","datePublished":"2010-02-19","dateModified":"2024-05-23","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/author\/rizklaw\/#Person","name":"Rizk Law","url":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/author\/rizklaw\/","identifier":9,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/10e23ce5e6c4dadb4589cd8edf2c3f59ac356a6e876c3656917777913d9c3bc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/10e23ce5e6c4dadb4589cd8edf2c3f59ac356a6e876c3656917777913d9c3bc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Rizk Law","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/rizk-law-logo-footer.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/rizk-law-logo-footer.jpg","width":278,"height":65}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Richard-Rizk-headshot.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Richard-Rizk-headshot.jpg","width":383,"height":427},"url":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/water-losses-pain-suffering-damages\/","about":["Personal Injury"],"wordCount":522,"articleBody":"Most states do not allow pain and suffering damages for property losses. Oregon is an exception.In\u00a0Edwards v Talent Irrigation District,\u00a0280 Or. 307, 309, 570 P.2d 1169 (1977), defendant\u2019s negligent acts caused water from their irrigation ditch to flood the plaintiff\u2019s property. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for \u201cmental anguish\u201d as a result of the defendant\u2019s interference with the plaintiff\u2019s use and enjoyment of his property.The\u00a0Edwards\u00a0court observed:\u201cThe testimony in this case clearly reveals that the mental anguish for which plaintiffs recovered was the direct result of their concern for the damage to their property caused by\u00a0defendant\u2019s negligence\u00a0and their attempts to minimize that damage. They were anguished over the loss of the use of their laundry and bath facilities and the necessity of spending hours attempting to drain their land, and for other concernscaused by the entry of the water.\u201d\u00a0280 Or. at 310.The \u201cEdwards rule\u201d allowing mental anguish damages for interference with the use and enjoyment of land was applied in McGREGOR v. BARTON SAND &amp; GRAVEL, INC., 62 Or. App. 24 (1983).The\u00a0McGregor\u00a0Court stated:\u201cWe understand Edwards to hold that an interference with use and enjoyment can be a kind of direct and natural result of an intrusion that will permit an award of emotional distress damages. Here, there was ample evidence that plaintiffs suffered emotional distress and that the distress was attributable to defendants\u2019 interference with plaintiffs\u2019 use and enjoyment of their property.\u201dThe\u00a0McGREGOR\u00a0Court added that that the theory of wrongdoing (negligence, intentional, recklessness) makes no difference in whether pain and suffering damages are available. The Court reasons:\u201cWe conclude that the Edwards rule, allowing emotional distress damages for interference with the use and enjoyment of land, is as applicable in intentional trespass actions as in negligence or nuisance actions. No reason occurs to us why the same kind of injury resulting from the same kind of act should not be compensable solely because the actor\u2019s conduct is deliberate rather than negligent.\u201dMcGREGOR at 32.Still, even the Edwards Court recognizes that emotional distress damages are not available in\u00a0all instances\u00a0of property damages. The Edwards Court explained:\u201cAlthough we hold in this case that emotional distress damages may be recovered in an action for nuisance, we emphasize that our holding is limited to this particular species of case. The law involving recovery for emotional distress generally is confused and perhaps in need of rethinking by the courts. We have concluded, however, that this case does not provide a proper vehicle for reconsideration of the rules governing recovery for this type of injury.\u201d\u00a080 Or at 310,\u00a0 n 4.Nonetheless, the McGregor Court rejected\u00a0 defense attempts to use the above quoted footnote to limit the availability of\u00a0pain and suffering damages\u00a0stating:\u201cDefendants appear to understand that footnote as in some manner limiting emotional distress damages to nuisance actions. In our view, the purposes of the Edwards footnote were only to dispel any understanding that the case decided anything beyond the immediate issue presented and to suggest that the general subject of emotional distress damages might eventually receive more extensive attention.\u201d\u00a0McGREGOR at 32."},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Water Losses: Pain &#038; Suffering Damages","item":"https:\/\/www.rizklaw.com\/blog\/water-losses-pain-suffering-damages\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]