noting that a “new condition will be regarded as though it were a natural one, its artificial origin being then disregarded by the law,” only if, among other elements, “the creator of the artificial condition intended it to be permanent” (emphasis in original)
How later courts described this case
- noting that a “new condition will be regarded as though it were a natural one, its artificial origin being then disregarded by the law,” only if, among other elements, “the creator of the artificial condition intended it to be permanent” (emphasis in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHAUER, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the discussion by Mr. Justice Traynor except insofar as such discussion appears to support the police power-cZumrotro absque injuria doctrine enunciated in Archer v. City of Los Angeles (1941), 19 Cal.2d 19 [ 119 P.2d 1 ], and in O’Hara v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1941), 19 Cal.2d 61 [ 119 P.2d 23 ]. I would prefer, with Mr. Justice Carter, to overrule the holdings of the Archer and O’Hara cases in respect to the mentioned doctrine.
Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied August 31,1950.