Inverse condemnation: comparative fault.

(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking, as specified. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action, on or after January 1, 2014, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.