Falor v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority
102 A.3d 584
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Falor owns a vacant four‑story commercial building and requested the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority (Water Authority) shut off water in Dec. 2010; the water company employee discovered a shared two‑headed tap serving a neighbor and did not shut off Falor’s water or notify her.
- The gas company did shut off service; the building was unheated during winter 2010–2011. Pipes froze, burst, and released large volumes of water, causing substantial interior damage discovered in March 2011.
- Falor sued the Water Authority asserting negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability (alleging the tap/water supply was a dangerous or ultrahazardous condition); the Authority asserted governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541–8542).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Water Authority, concluding the claim was barred by governmental immunity because the injury resulted from the Authority’s omission (failure to shut off or notify), not from a dangerous condition in the Authority’s realty.
- Falor appealed, raising issues about (1) whether the tap was a “dangerous condition” under the utility exception to immunity, (2) trespass, (3) nuisance, and (4) strict liability for ultra‑hazardous activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two‑headed tap (and water service) was a "dangerous condition" under the utility‑facilities exception to the Tort Claims Act | Falor: the tap in the Authority’s right‑of‑way was a dangerous condition and the dangerous condition was created/maintained by the Authority’s continuing water service and its failure to shut it off or notify her | Water Authority: the tap functioned as intended; the harm arose from the Authority’s omission (inaction by employees), not from a dangerous condition of its realty | Held: Not a dangerous condition of the facility; immunity applies because the injury originated from the Authority’s conduct/omission, not the realty itself |
| Whether the utility service‑facilities exception (42 Pa.C.S. §8542(b)(5)) applies | Falor: exception applies because the tap is within the right‑of‑way and the Authority created the hazardous situation by not shutting off service | Water Authority: even if the tap is on its realty, the statute requires that the facility itself be dangerous; mere facilitation of injury by employee conduct is insufficient | Held: Exception does not apply; plaintiff alleged inaction, not a defective/dangerous facility |
| Trespass and nuisance claims based on continued water flow | Falor: trespass/nuisance available because water invaded her property due to Authority’s failure to shut off | Water Authority: claims are tort/allegations of negligence or omission and therefore barred by immunity absent a statutory exception | Held: Claims barred for same reason — do not fit within §8542(b)(5) exception |
| Strict liability / ultra‑hazardous activity | Falor: continuing water service to a vacant, unheated building was an abnormally dangerous activity imposing strict liability | Water Authority: ordinary provision/storage/delivery of water is not abnormally dangerous; Tort Claims Act narrows recovery to enumerated exceptions | Held: No strict liability; activity not ultra‑hazardous and Tort Claims Act exceptions control recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Le‑Nature’s, Inc. v. Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (utility‑facilities exception requires a dangerous condition of the facility itself, not merely negligent inaction)
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (dangerous condition cannot be said to originate from employee conduct; proximity or facilitation alone insufficient)
- Matarazzo v. Millers Mut. Group, Inc., 927 A.2d 689 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (refusal or failure to shut off water is a tort/inaction and does not fall within Tort Claims Act exceptions)
- Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 664 A.2d 1342 (Pa. 1995) (analysis that injury must derive from the local agency’s realty for exceptions to apply; foreign substances/conditions caused by others do not trigger facility exception)
- Albig v. Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, 502 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1985) (storage/delivery of water can pose risk but not necessarily an abnormally dangerous activity imposing strict liability)
- Dean v. Department of Transportation, 751 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 2000) (exceptions to governmental immunity are to be narrowly construed)