225 Cal. App. 4th 1264
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Biron Trust) own a 12-unit apartment in downtown Redding that flooded during storms on Feb. 23 and Mar. 16, 2009; they sued City of Redding for inverse condemnation and dangerous condition of public property.
- The March 2009 event was a >100-year storm; the court dismissed claims as to March flooding. The February event was found by the trial court to be consistent with a ~100-year storm.
- City operates a storm drainage system in the area; a 1993 city-wide master storm drain Study identified downtown facilities as deficient but low priority (nuisance flooding) and estimated multi-million dollar upgrades; downtown upgrades were deferred due to funding and priority.
- The trial court found the storm drains performed as designed (10-year capacity), were not obstructed, and were overwhelmed by the extraordinary storm; some overland flow, downstream impediments (fence, railroad ties), and adjacent property flood protections affected flooding.
- The court applied the rule of reasonableness to inverse condemnation, found City acted reasonably in deferring upgrades, concluded the storm was a superseding cause (no substantial causation), and found no dangerous condition liability because City's decision was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for inverse condemnation liability | Strict liability should apply to municipal storm drain that caused flooding | Rule of reasonableness applies to public flood-control/storm-drain systems | Court: Rule of reasonableness applies (affirmed) |
| Application of reasonableness to City’s decision to defer upgrades | City knew facilities were deficient; failure to upgrade was unreasonable | City prioritized limited funds; downtown problems were nuisance-level and upgrades had low priority | Court: City acted reasonably under Locklin/Bunch factors; deferral justified |
| Causation for inverse condemnation | Storm drain contributed to damage; City liable even if storm large | Storm exceeded design capacity; drains performed as intended; storm was superseding cause | Court: No substantial causation; extraordinary storm superseded City liability |
| Dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code §835) | Deficient facilities created reasonably foreseeable risk and City had notice | Even if condition existed, City’s decision not to upgrade was reasonable given cost/likelihood | Court: No dangerous-condition liability; trial court’s reasonableness finding supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327 (rule of reasonableness applies to surface-water alterations)
- Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 15 Cal.4th 432 (reasonableness test applies to public flood-control projects to balance public benefit and private harm)
- Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250 (established strict-liability framework for inverse condemnation and recognized limited exceptions)
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (adopted reasonableness balancing for flood-control failures; extraordinary storms can be superseding causes)