Preview
RECEIVED FOR SCANNING
VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT
AUG 25 2022
AFTER 4:00 PM.
Robert M. Baskin, Esq.
Law Office of Robert M. Baskin
A Professional Corporation
1849 Knoll Drive
Ventura, California 93003-7321
State Bar Number: 65179
(805) 658-1000
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
COLLEEN MCCUTCHAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
COLLEEN McCUTCHAN, Case No.:
Plaintiff
vs.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
LAURA J. CRUZ;
EUGENIA A. RODRIGUEZ; and
DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants.
Plaintiff COLLEEN McCUTCHAN alleges:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff COLLEEN McCUTCHAN is an individual residing in Ventura
County, California.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant LAURA J. CRUZ is an individual
residing in Ventura County, California.
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES3. Upon information and belief, Defendant EUGENIA A. RODRIGUEZ is an
individual residing in Ventura County, California.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at all
relevant times herein, Defendant LAURA J. CRUZ owned or rented a residence located
at 6035 North Greentree Drive, Somis, California, 93066 (the “Property”).
5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
herein as DOES 1 through 20, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at all relevant
times herein each of the DOE Defendants was responsible in some manner for the
acts, omissions and occurrences herein alleged and Plaintiffs damages were
proximately caused thereby. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true
names and capacities of the DOE Defendants after they have been ascertained.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all
relevant times, each defendant was the agent, employee, representative, partner,
parent company, subsidiary or affiliate of each of the other defendants and was acting,
or was acted’ for, within the authority of such agency, employment, representation,
partnership or corporate affiliation while doing or omitting to do the acts alleged herein
and with the permission, approval, consent and/or ratification of all other Defendants.
The allegations against each Defendant incorporate by reference the allegations
against each DOE Defendant.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all
televant times herein, Defendants allowed their Peacock to run, roam, feed, and nest
on the property located at 6035 N. Greentree Drive, Somis, California, 93066. The
Peacock was not caged or fenced and was allowed to roam outside the “Property” and
the immediately adjacent public walkway and street.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each
Defendant who is sued in this Complaint under a fictitious name is responsible, in some
manner, for the acts, omissions and occurrences alleged here, and that Plaintiffs
2:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESdamages as herein alleged were proximally caused by these Defendants, as well as
the named Defendants.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all
relevant times herein, Defendants owned, kept, fed and/or harbored a peacock
(hereinafter, the “Peacock”). Plaintiff herein alleges that the Peacock attacked, bit and
clawed the Plaintiff on or about March 26, 2021.
10. At the time Plaintiff was attacked, bit, and clawed, Plaintiff was walking on
North Greentree Drive, in front of Defendants’ Property, when she was attacked and
bitten by the Peacock on or about March 26, 2021.
VENUE
11. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to the provisions of
California Code of Civil Procedures §§ 395 and 395.5, because the incident that gives
tise to Defendants’ liability occurred in the City of Somis, County of Ventura.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants were the owners, keepers,
and/or harborers of a peacock that resided at the Property (hereinafter, the “Peacock’).
13. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff was legally walking on the public
street known as North Greentree Drive, Somis, California, in front of Defendants’
Property.
14. Each Defendant was the agent, co-conspirator, or employee of each
other Defendant in doing the things complained of herein, and was acting within the
course and scope of said agency, conspiracy, or employment.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each
Defendant who is sued in this Complaint under a fictitious name is responsible, in some
manner, for the acts, omissions, and occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs
1
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESdamages as herein alleged, were proximately caused by those Defendants, as well as
the named Defendants.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Strict Liability—Common Law
(Against all Defendants)
16. — Strict liability- common-law (against all defendants).
17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint
above, as though fully set forth herein.
18. Atall times herein mentioned defendants were the owners of the Peacock
and allowed the Peacock to inhabit the Property and roam unattended outside the
Property on the public street known as North Greentree Drive.
19. Upon information and belief, the Peacock posed a risk of harm by virtue
of it's breed.
20. Upon information and belief, the Peacock posed a risk of harm to others
because it had a habit of attacking other animals and/or people and/or jumping and
clawing other animals and/or people, causing injury to other animals and people.
21. Upon information and belief, peacocks are very territorial in nature, and
pose a risk of danger to other animals and people that pass in close proximity to the
area where they nest.
22. Defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, of the
viciousness and dangerousness of the Peacock that made said Peacock a menace
and threat and a risk of harm to others.
23. Defendants and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known,
that the Peacock had previously attacked and/or bitten other persons and/or animals.
24. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff was legally on North Greentree
Drive, Somis, California, in front of Defendants’ Property. Defendants’ Peacock, at that
iT!
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.time and place, and as a proximate result of the propensities mentioned above,
attacked and bit, clawed and scratched Plaintiff.
25. As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was
hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her body and
shock and injury to her nervous system and person, all of which said injuries have
caused, and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical and emotional distress,
and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff sustained deep lacerations abrasions, and
puncture wounds to her body. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges
that said injuries will result in some permanent disability and disfigurement to said
Plaintiff, all in addition to her general damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that as a further
direct, proximate and legal result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was
tequired to, and did, employ, physicians, therapists, and other medical and
professional services to treat and care for her injuries. As a result, Plaintiff incurred
and continues to incur expenses for medical treatment and care, medicines, and
incidental care.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that in the future
she will require the services of physicians, surgeons, therapists, nurses, hospitals and
other medical professional services to treat and care for her, and the reasonable
amount of said services and liability will conform to proof at the time of trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Per Se
(Against all Defendants)
28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
29. Upon information and belief, on March 26, 2021, there existed in the
County of Ventura, State of California, an ordinance which states:
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES“It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having
possession of any animal to permit it to be at large without
reasonable control or to be pastured or kept upon any street
or other public place, or common area, or upon any private
property against the wishes of the owner or occupant thereof
or in any manner or place to the injury of the owner or
occupant of any other property. Every person who violates
any of the provisions of this Section is guilty of a
misdemeanoriinfraction. An Animal Control! Officer, as
defined in Section 4493-2, may issue an administrative
citation assessing a civil penalty to that person in
accordance with, and the person shall be subject to the
administrative enforcement provisions set forth in, Article 8.”
(Ordinance 4462)
30. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants, and each of them, violated the
Ordinance and other relevant code sections.
31. | The Defendants’ violation of the Ordinance and code sections was the
sole and proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff on or about March 26, 2021.
32. | The Ordinance and code sections were intended and designed to prevent
the injury which Plaintiff suffered as alleged herein.
33. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection the
Ordinance and code sections were adopted.
34. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants, and each of them, negligently
and carelessly, and in violation of the Ordinance and code sections referred to above,
allowed the Peacock to run and roam freely from the Property to the public street and
common area.
35. In further violation of the Ordinance and code sections, Defendants, and
each of them, failed to prevent the Peacock from attacking, biting and otherwise
injuring Plaintiff.
36. By reason of the foregoing and as a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff
sustained serious past and future injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
(Against all Defendants)
37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint
above as though fully set forth herein.
38. At all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants resided at
the Property and were either owners, or were in the care, custody, and control of the
Peacock.
39. Atal times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty
to maintain and handle the Peacock in such a manner as to prevent the Peacock from
tunning freely onto the public streets and/or attacking persons.
40. Atall times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty
to restrain and/or control the Peacock from attacking persons.
41. As Plaintiff was legally walking on the public street known as North
Greentree Drive, Defendants, and each of them, allowed the Peacock to run free
without control and/or allowed the Peacock to attack Plaintiff.
42. Plaintiff had no reason to suspect that Defendants’ Peacock would attack
and bite her. The attack occurred without Plaintiff doing anything to provoke or invite
the attack.
43. Defendants could reasonably anticipate that the Peacock's conduct
would cause injury; however, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to control
and/or properly restrain the Peacock.
44. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty when they negligently
and carelessly permitted the Peacock to run freely off the Property and ultimately
attack and bite Plaintiff.
45. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty when they failed to
warn Plaintiff of the Peacock’s propensity to bite and failed to prevent Plaintiff from
harm.
7:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.46. Defendants’ unreasonable actions and omissions with respect to the care
and control of the Peacock constitute a breach of said Defendants’ duty to prevent the
Peacock from inflicting bodily injuries upon Plaintiff.
47. Asa proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them,
Plaintiff was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to
her body, and shock and injury to her nervous system and person, all of which said
injuries have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical and
emotional distress, and nervous pain-and-suffering. Plaintiff sustained deep
lacerations, abrasions, bruises, and puncture wounds to her body. Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent
disability and disfigurement to said Plaintiff, all in addition to her general damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.
48. Plaintiff is informed believes and thereupon alleges, as a further direct,
proximate, and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawfulness of
Defendants’, Plaintiff was required to, and did, employ physicians, therapists and other
medical and professional services to treat and care for her injuries. As a result, Plaintiff
incurred and continues to incur expenses for medical treatment and care, medicines,
and incidental care.
49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in the future
she will require the services of physicians, surgeons, therapists, nurses, hospitals, and
other medical professional services to treat and care for her, and the reasonable
amount of said services and liability will conform to proof at the time of trial.
Tit
1
1
Ml
Hl
Ml
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of
them, as follows:
1. All available General damages to Plaintiff, according to proof.
All available Economic damages to Plaintiff, according to proof;
Medical and related expenses of Plaintiff, according to proof;
Costs of suit herein;
Prejudgment interest; and
oak ON
Such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August av , 2022 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. BASKIN
Mamet eT
Robert M. Baskin, Esq.,
Attorney for Petitioner,
COLLEEN MCCUTCHAN
-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
RECEIVED FOR SCANNING VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT AUG 25 2022 AFTER 4:00 PM. Robert M. Baskin, Esq. Law Office of Robert M. Baskin A Professional Corporation 1849 Knoll Drive Ventura, California 93003-7321 State Bar Number: 65179 (805) 658-1000 Attorneys for Plaintiff, COLLEEN MCCUTCHAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA COLLEEN McCUTCHAN, Case No.: Plaintiff vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES LAURA J. CRUZ; EUGENIA A. RODRIGUEZ; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. Plaintiff COLLEEN McCUTCHAN alleges: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff COLLEEN McCUTCHAN is an individual residing in Ventura County, California. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant LAURA J. CRUZ is an individual residing in Ventura County, California. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES3. Upon information and belief, Defendant EUGENIA A. RODRIGUEZ is an individual residing in Ventura County, California. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at all relevant times herein, Defendant LAURA J. CRUZ owned or rented a residence located at 6035 North Greentree Drive, Somis, California, 93066 (the “Property”). 5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at all relevant times herein each of the DOE Defendants was responsible in some manner for the acts, omissions and occurrences herein alleged and Plaintiffs damages were proximately caused thereby. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants after they have been ascertained. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all relevant times, each defendant was the agent, employee, representative, partner, parent company, subsidiary or affiliate of each of the other defendants and was acting, or was acted’ for, within the authority of such agency, employment, representation, partnership or corporate affiliation while doing or omitting to do the acts alleged herein and with the permission, approval, consent and/or ratification of all other Defendants. The allegations against each Defendant incorporate by reference the allegations against each DOE Defendant. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all televant times herein, Defendants allowed their Peacock to run, roam, feed, and nest on the property located at 6035 N. Greentree Drive, Somis, California, 93066. The Peacock was not caged or fenced and was allowed to roam outside the “Property” and the immediately adjacent public walkway and street. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each Defendant who is sued in this Complaint under a fictitious name is responsible, in some manner, for the acts, omissions and occurrences alleged here, and that Plaintiffs 2: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESdamages as herein alleged were proximally caused by these Defendants, as well as the named Defendants. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all relevant times herein, Defendants owned, kept, fed and/or harbored a peacock (hereinafter, the “Peacock”). Plaintiff herein alleges that the Peacock attacked, bit and clawed the Plaintiff on or about March 26, 2021. 10. At the time Plaintiff was attacked, bit, and clawed, Plaintiff was walking on North Greentree Drive, in front of Defendants’ Property, when she was attacked and bitten by the Peacock on or about March 26, 2021. VENUE 11. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedures §§ 395 and 395.5, because the incident that gives tise to Defendants’ liability occurred in the City of Somis, County of Ventura. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 12. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants were the owners, keepers, and/or harborers of a peacock that resided at the Property (hereinafter, the “Peacock’). 13. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff was legally walking on the public street known as North Greentree Drive, Somis, California, in front of Defendants’ Property. 14. Each Defendant was the agent, co-conspirator, or employee of each other Defendant in doing the things complained of herein, and was acting within the course and scope of said agency, conspiracy, or employment. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each Defendant who is sued in this Complaint under a fictitious name is responsible, in some manner, for the acts, omissions, and occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs 1 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESdamages as herein alleged, were proximately caused by those Defendants, as well as the named Defendants. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Strict Liability—Common Law (Against all Defendants) 16. — Strict liability- common-law (against all defendants). 17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint above, as though fully set forth herein. 18. Atall times herein mentioned defendants were the owners of the Peacock and allowed the Peacock to inhabit the Property and roam unattended outside the Property on the public street known as North Greentree Drive. 19. Upon information and belief, the Peacock posed a risk of harm by virtue of it's breed. 20. Upon information and belief, the Peacock posed a risk of harm to others because it had a habit of attacking other animals and/or people and/or jumping and clawing other animals and/or people, causing injury to other animals and people. 21. Upon information and belief, peacocks are very territorial in nature, and pose a risk of danger to other animals and people that pass in close proximity to the area where they nest. 22. Defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, of the viciousness and dangerousness of the Peacock that made said Peacock a menace and threat and a risk of harm to others. 23. Defendants and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Peacock had previously attacked and/or bitten other persons and/or animals. 24. On or about March 26, 2021, Plaintiff was legally on North Greentree Drive, Somis, California, in front of Defendants’ Property. Defendants’ Peacock, at that iT! 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.time and place, and as a proximate result of the propensities mentioned above, attacked and bit, clawed and scratched Plaintiff. 25. As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her body and shock and injury to her nervous system and person, all of which said injuries have caused, and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical and emotional distress, and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff sustained deep lacerations abrasions, and puncture wounds to her body. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability and disfigurement to said Plaintiff, all in addition to her general damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that as a further direct, proximate and legal result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was tequired to, and did, employ, physicians, therapists, and other medical and professional services to treat and care for her injuries. As a result, Plaintiff incurred and continues to incur expenses for medical treatment and care, medicines, and incidental care. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that in the future she will require the services of physicians, surgeons, therapists, nurses, hospitals and other medical professional services to treat and care for her, and the reasonable amount of said services and liability will conform to proof at the time of trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence Per Se (Against all Defendants) 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 29. Upon information and belief, on March 26, 2021, there existed in the County of Ventura, State of California, an ordinance which states: 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES“It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having possession of any animal to permit it to be at large without reasonable control or to be pastured or kept upon any street or other public place, or common area, or upon any private property against the wishes of the owner or occupant thereof or in any manner or place to the injury of the owner or occupant of any other property. Every person who violates any of the provisions of this Section is guilty of a misdemeanoriinfraction. An Animal Control! Officer, as defined in Section 4493-2, may issue an administrative citation assessing a civil penalty to that person in accordance with, and the person shall be subject to the administrative enforcement provisions set forth in, Article 8.” (Ordinance 4462) 30. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants, and each of them, violated the Ordinance and other relevant code sections. 31. | The Defendants’ violation of the Ordinance and code sections was the sole and proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff on or about March 26, 2021. 32. | The Ordinance and code sections were intended and designed to prevent the injury which Plaintiff suffered as alleged herein. 33. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection the Ordinance and code sections were adopted. 34. On or about March 26, 2021, Defendants, and each of them, negligently and carelessly, and in violation of the Ordinance and code sections referred to above, allowed the Peacock to run and roam freely from the Property to the public street and common area. 35. In further violation of the Ordinance and code sections, Defendants, and each of them, failed to prevent the Peacock from attacking, biting and otherwise injuring Plaintiff. 36. By reason of the foregoing and as a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff sustained serious past and future injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Against all Defendants) 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint above as though fully set forth herein. 38. At all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants resided at the Property and were either owners, or were in the care, custody, and control of the Peacock. 39. Atal times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to maintain and handle the Peacock in such a manner as to prevent the Peacock from tunning freely onto the public streets and/or attacking persons. 40. Atall times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to restrain and/or control the Peacock from attacking persons. 41. As Plaintiff was legally walking on the public street known as North Greentree Drive, Defendants, and each of them, allowed the Peacock to run free without control and/or allowed the Peacock to attack Plaintiff. 42. Plaintiff had no reason to suspect that Defendants’ Peacock would attack and bite her. The attack occurred without Plaintiff doing anything to provoke or invite the attack. 43. Defendants could reasonably anticipate that the Peacock's conduct would cause injury; however, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to control and/or properly restrain the Peacock. 44. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty when they negligently and carelessly permitted the Peacock to run freely off the Property and ultimately attack and bite Plaintiff. 45. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty when they failed to warn Plaintiff of the Peacock’s propensity to bite and failed to prevent Plaintiff from harm. 7: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.46. Defendants’ unreasonable actions and omissions with respect to the care and control of the Peacock constitute a breach of said Defendants’ duty to prevent the Peacock from inflicting bodily injuries upon Plaintiff. 47. Asa proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her body, and shock and injury to her nervous system and person, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical and emotional distress, and nervous pain-and-suffering. Plaintiff sustained deep lacerations, abrasions, bruises, and puncture wounds to her body. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability and disfigurement to said Plaintiff, all in addition to her general damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 48. Plaintiff is informed believes and thereupon alleges, as a further direct, proximate, and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawfulness of Defendants’, Plaintiff was required to, and did, employ physicians, therapists and other medical and professional services to treat and care for her injuries. As a result, Plaintiff incurred and continues to incur expenses for medical treatment and care, medicines, and incidental care. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in the future she will require the services of physicians, surgeons, therapists, nurses, hospitals, and other medical professional services to treat and care for her, and the reasonable amount of said services and liability will conform to proof at the time of trial. Tit 1 1 Ml Hl Ml -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESPRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. All available General damages to Plaintiff, according to proof. All available Economic damages to Plaintiff, according to proof; Medical and related expenses of Plaintiff, according to proof; Costs of suit herein; Prejudgment interest; and oak ON Such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: August av , 2022 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. BASKIN Mamet eT Robert M. Baskin, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner, COLLEEN MCCUTCHAN -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES