Dunn v. City of Milwaukie, 328 P.3d 1261

Inverse condemnation action by Dunn against City of Milwaukie after hydrocleaning sewer lines caused sewage to back up into Dunn's home.
City used high-pressure water for sewer cleaning; area later designated as low-pressure to prevent invasions, but Dunn's home was not in that zone at the time of backup.
Backup caused damage to Dunn's wood floors, crawl space, and furnace with substantial repair costs.
Plaintiff pursued negligence and inverse condemnation; negligence claim time-barred by ORS 30.275; jury awarded damages on the inverse condemnation claim.
Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Supreme Court granted review to examine the required intent standard for takings based on physical invasions of property.
Court clarifies the natural and ordinary consequences test: intent must be proven, not inferred from mere causation, to support a taking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the natural and ordinary consequences test sufficient to infer intent to take from causation?	Dunn argues the test allows inference of city intent where the backup was the natural result of hydrocleaning.	Milwaukie argues the test should require substantial certainty or specific intent.	No; the court rejects inference from mere causation; intent must be shown as the natural and ordinary consequences of intentional acts.
Did the evidence establish that the city acted with the requisite intent to take Dunn's property?	Dunn asserts the backup was the direct consequence of the city's intentional high-pressure hydrocleaning.	Milwaukie contends the evidence does not show the backup was the necessary, certain, or inevitable result of the act.	No; the evidence did not prove the backup was the necessary, certain, or inevitable result of the city's intentional actions; directed verdict for city warranted.

Gearin v. Marion County, 110 Or 390 (1924) (first articulation of intent as an element in takings; demonstrates intentional acts versus torts)
Morrison v. Clackamas County, 141 Or 564 (1933) (natural and ordinary consequences test for intent in takings)
Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or 19 (2002) (reaffirms intent required for inverse condemnation; clarifies test context)
Coast Range Conifers v. Bd. of Forestry, 339 Or 136 (2005) (discusses scope of takings power and the nature of appropriation)
Levene v. City of Salem, 191 Or 182 (1951) (early consequential takings analysis governing causation and liability)
Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172 (1993) (applies some substantial beneficial use/taking framework to regulatory context)