Does a defendant have to pay the inverse condemnation costs of an inverse condemnation plaintiff?

Under the rules established by these cases it is clear that defendants' costs may not be imposed on an inverse condemnation plaintiff in any case in which the plaintiff demonstrates that the actions of a governmental entity damaged the plaintiff's property. Plaintiffs here do not fall within the rules of City of Los Angeles v. Ricards, supra, 10 Cal.3d 385, 391, 110 Cal.Rptr. 489, 515 P.2d 585, and Collier v. Merced Irr. Dist., supra, 213 Cal. 554, 572, 2 P.2d 790, however. Even assuming they proved damage, it was not compensable damage absent proof that the defendants' actions were unreasonable and that plaintiffs themselves acted reasonably to prevent the damage.