California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Drilling v. Neville, A155907 (Cal. App. 2020):
"[A plaintiff] is not entitled to more than a single recovery for each distinct item of compensable damage supported by the evidence. [Citation.] Double or duplicative recovery for the same items of damage amounts to overcompensation and is therefore prohibited." (Tavaglione v. Billings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1150, 1158-1159.) "In contrast, where separate items of compensable damage are shown by distinct and independent evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire amount of his damages, whether that amount is expressed by the jury in a single verdict or multiple verdicts
Page 50
referring to different claims or legal theories." (Id. at p. 1159.) In examining these claims, we bear in mind the general principle that "[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown." (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.