198 Cal. App. 4th 831
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff homeowners sue County of San Bernardino for inverse condemnation arising from floods in December 2003 and October 2004 that inundated properties along Greenwood Avenue in Devore.
- Paved Greenwood Avenue (80% paved, 20% unimproved) runs north-south; unimproved Greenwood alignment is raw land with no deliberate County action prior to 2003.
- A dam built at the canyon outlet amplified debris flow after the December 25, 2003 rain; the County installed K-rails along Greenwood Avenue in January 2004 to protect against further damage.
- October 2004 flood produced water and debris that escaped the K-rails, damaging plaintiffs’ properties; trial court bifurcated damages and takings, granting nonsuit on the 2003 claim and ruling for County on the 2004 claim post-application of a reasonableness standard.
- Lower court and appellate court concluded the paved portion was a public improvement but not a substantial cause of 2003 damages; for 2004, the installation of K-rails was a public improvement and County acted reasonably under a Belair/Locklin reasonableness standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the December 2003 flood caused by a public improvement? | Greenwood alignment/Public improvement caused damage. | Unimproved Greenwood alignment not a public improvement; no deliberate County action. | No public improvement; nonsuit affirmed for December 2003. |
| Did the paved portion of Greenwood Avenue causally contribute to December 2003 damages? | Paved portion amplified flow; Court should award inverse condemnation. | Paved portion not a substantial cause; dam break was primary cause. | Paving not a substantial cause; no liability for December 2003. |
| What standard governs the October 2004 K-rail installation and resulting damages? | Strict liability under Albers applies for flood-control works. | Reasonableness standard under Belair/Locklin governs. | Reasonableness standard applies; County acted reasonably installing K-rails. |
| Was the K-rail installation a public improvement entitling inverse condemnation liability? | Yes, as flood-control works constituting a public improvement. | Yes, but liability requires unreasonable conduct under Belair/Locklin. | K-rails were a public improvement; liability governed by reasonableness, not strict liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (Cal. 1988) (reasonableness standard for flood-control damage rather than strict liability)
- Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 1994) (upholds reasonableness test balancing public and private interests)
- Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250 (Cal. 1965) (strict liability for inverse condemnation in flood-control context (abrogated in later cases))
- Akins v. State of California, 61 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 1997) (distinguishes situations involving intentional upstream diversions from maintenance cases)
- Archer v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.2d 19 (Cal. 1941) (upstream improvements may increase downstream damage but may limit liability)
- Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 15 Cal.4th 432 (Cal. 1997) (confirms Belair’s reasonableness approach in flood-diversion cases)
- Yox v. City of Whittier, 182 Cal.App.3d 347 (Cal. App. 1986) (ownership alone of improvements not sufficient without dominion/control)
- Wildensten v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 231 Cal.App.3d 976 (Cal. App. 1991) (mere ownership of undeveloped land cannot support inverse condemnation)