Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co.
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Edison installed bird guards to prevent wildlife contact with energized components; a 1/11/2006 incident at Valley St & Lyons Ave, Newhall, allowed a bird to contact a live line and grounded equipment, causing a ground fault that damaged Pacific Bell’s underground cables.
- Pacific Bell sued Edison in December 2008 for negligence and inverse condemnation; negligence claim was apparently dismissed before trial, leaving inverse condemnation to be tried bench-side.
- Trial court rejected Edison’s claim of private-entity status and followed Barham v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. to allow inverse condemnation liability; court held no need for coparticipation with a government entity.
- Trial court declined to apply a flood-control reasonableness standard, instead applying a strict liability framework for inverse condemnation; damages awarded totaled $123,841.95 including prejudgment interest, fees, and costs.
- On appeal, Edison challenged Barham’s framework and Pettis/Breidert-type interpretations; appellate court affirmed inverse condemnation liability for Edison and rejected the reasonableness standard outside flood-control context.
- Judgment affirmed; Pacific Bell awarded costs on appeal; later modification noted and Supreme Court review denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edison, though privately owned, is subject to inverse condemnation liability. | Barham supports Edison liability as a public entity. | Pettis/Breidert restrict liability to direct eminent domain scenarios. | Yes, Edison may be liable. |
| Whether a reasonableness standard should govern Edison’s inverse condemnation liability. | Flood-control reasoning should apply to balance policy interests. | A reasonableness standard should apply outside flood-control context. | No; strict liability applies. |
| What standard governs damages for inverse condemnation here. | Damage measure aligns with inverse condemnation principles. | Damages should reflect reasonable expectations of utility operation. | Strict liability framework governs. |
| Whether Barham controls Edison’s liability in this fact pattern. | Barham forecloses private-vs-public distinction against inverse condemnation. | Barham should be distinguished or limited. | Barham controls; Edison liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barham v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 74 Cal.App.4th 744 (Cal.App.4th 1999) (inverse condemnation liability of a private utility similar to public entity)
- Breidert v. Southern Pac. Co., 61 Cal.2d 659 (Cal. 1964) (joint participation discussion in inverse condemnation framework)
- Pettis v. General Tel. Co., 66 Cal.2d 503 (Cal. 1967) (inverse condemnation via necessity of maintaining lines; damages remedy)
- Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Cal.3d 458 (Cal. 1979) (monopoly/regulation ties to state; quasi-governmental attributes)
- Eachus v. Los Angeles etc. Ry. Co., 103 Cal. 614 (Cal. 1894) (franchise-based authority; inverse condemnation context)
- Albers v. County of Los Angeles, 62 Cal.2d 250 (Cal. 1965) (constitutional basis for liability; strict approach)
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (Cal. 1988) (reasonableness balancing in flood control context)
- Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 1994) (extension of Belair/Bunch reasoning to drainage context)
- Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 15 Cal.4th 432 (Cal. 1997) (development of flood-control reasonableness rule limiting strict liability)
- Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App.4th 596 (Cal.App.4th 2000) (extension of flood-control reasoning; not extending reasonableness to water-delivery context)
- Cantu v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 189 Cal.App.3d 160 (Cal.App.3d 1987) (inverse condemnation context; eminent domain framing)