Is a plaintiff entitled to recover either the cost of repair or the diminution in value of the property?

As a general rule, a plaintiff in a suit for negligent damage to real property is allowed to recover either the cost of repair or the diminution in value, but not both. (Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 565, 576, 136 Cal.Rptr. 751). It clearly makes sense to allow only one

Page 905

It is ordinarily appropriate to employ the lesser of the two measures (Ferraro v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 33, 49, 162 Cal.Rptr. 238); otherwise plaintiffs might recover large sums for "injury" to property that subtracts little or nothing from--or occasionally even adds to--its value. This concern is motivated both by a judicial antipathy towards [17 Cal.App.4th 1203] economically wasteful activity, and by the difficulty of assuring that the award is used for the announced repairs and not simply pocketed as a windfall.