Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 466·2000 Daily Journal DAR 6281·81 Cal. App. 4th 596·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 897·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4740
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 13, 2000D033640California6,781 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDonald, J.

Plaintiff Pacific Bell’s facility suffered substantial damage when a corroded cast-iron water pipe servicing a fire hydrant burst and the escaping water flooded the facility. The pipe was owned and maintained by defendant City of San Diego (City) and would not have burst had it not been corroded.

Pacific Bell sought inverse condemnation damages from City. Pacific Bell asserted that because City had no preventive maintenance plan to inspect or monitor the effect of corrosion on old cast iron pipes, burst pipes resulting in damage to adjoining private property was an inevitable consequence of City’s water delivery system as designed, constructed and maintained.

There are two principal issues. First, do the immunities under the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), including the so-called fire hydrant immunity (§ 850.4), bar an inverse condemnation claimant from recovering damages caused by a burst pipe providing water service to a fire hydrant? Second, if the Tort Claims Act immunities do not apply, under inverse condemnation principles is City strictly liable for damages caused by its bursting pipe or must the claimant establish City’s unreasonable conduct?

City…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.