Under California law, Damages for discomfort, annoyance, and mental distress suffered by a homeowner as the result of a nuisance are recoverable, and not merely as an alternative to or to the exclusion of damages for depreciation of the rental value. See Spaulding v. Cameron, (1954) 127 Cal. App. 2d 698, 706. California courts have held that Annoyance and discomfort damages are intended to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of his or her peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the property. See Kelly v. CB & I Constructors, Inc., (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 442, 456. Other courts have held the same. See Webster v. Boone (Colo.App.1999) 992 P.2d 1183, 1185, “We recognize that annoyance and discomfort by their very nature include a mental or emotional component, and that some dictionary definitions of these terms include the concept of distress. Nevertheless, the ‘annoyance and discomfort’ for which damages may be recovered on nuisance and trespass claims generally refers to distress arising out of physical discomfort, irritation, or inconvenience caused by odors, pests, noise, and the like. See also the California Supreme Court’s holding in Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co., (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 265. In that case, the plaintiffs were the owners and occupants of a property on which they both resided and operated a planting mill ( Id. at p. 266, 288 P.2d 507.) The defendant operated a cotton ginning mill, which caused the “lawns, flowers, shrubs, window screens, hedges and furniture” on the plaintiffs’ property to be “for approximately six months of each year, covered with a thick coating of dust and lint and ginning waste.” ( Id. at p. 273, 288 P.2d 507.) The defendant’s trespass, the court noted, was not of “the type to cause fright or shock or even physical illness,” but it nevertheless caused the plaintiffs “much discomfort.” ( Ibid.) Because such annoyance and discomfort was the natural and proximate result of the defendant’s trespass, the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation, even though they had suffered no physical injury. ( Id. at pp. 272–273, 288 P.2d 507.) The determination of the amount of compensation for personal discomfort and annoyance to which a person has been subjected by a nuisance on adjoining property is a question for the trial court. See Griffin v. Northridge, (1944) 67 Cal. App. 2d 69, 76.
Thus, annoyance and discomfort damages are intended to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of his or her peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the property.