Pascoe v. PA American Water Co., Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, Twp of Hanover, Pascoe v. PA American Water Co., Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, Twp of Hanover

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs’ home flooded with four inches of water and raw sewage from a Township sewer line; Plaintiffs sued the Township, the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority (Authority), and Pennsylvania American Water Company (Water Company).
Plaintiffs voluntarily discontinued claims against the Authority before trial; trial proceeded against the Township and Water Company; jury returned for Water Company, and Township moved for compulsory nonsuit at close of Plaintiffs’ case.
Trial evidence: the sewer line was collapsed, deteriorated, and blocked by tree roots/debris; Plaintiffs introduced evidence of a single prior backup at the same location in 1998 (12 years earlier) and testimony that no routine inspections were performed and the Township contracted sewer services to the Authority years before the incident.
Plaintiffs produced no expert testimony, no records of repeated backups or complaints in the years immediately preceding 2010, and no evidence identifying the cause of the 1998 backup.
The trial court granted the Township’s compulsory nonsuit on governmental immunity grounds under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA); the trial court’s denial of post-trial relief was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the utility service facilities exception to PSTCA immunity applies (i.e., whether Township had notice of dangerous sewer condition)	Plaintiffs argued the 1998 backup and the Township/Authority’s lack of routine inspections sufficed to show notice of a dangerous condition that caused the 2010 backup	Township argued plaintiffs failed to prove actual or constructive notice — evidence was limited to a single, remote incident and no proof of recurring problems or complaints	Held: Reversed for Plaintiffs. The court held a single backup 12 years earlier and absence of inspections did not establish notice; immunity barred the claim.
Whether mere failure to inspect/maintain is sufficient to establish constructive notice	Plaintiffs contended that absence of any regular inspections or maintenance put the Township on notice	Township maintained that failure-to-inspect alone, without evidence of prior recurring problems or specific notice, is insufficient	Held: Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention; failure to inspect alone, absent other evidence (e.g., repeated incidents, complaints, or proof of a causative condition), does not satisfy notice requirement.

McCarthy v. City of Bethlehem, 962 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (applies utility service facilities exception to sewer backup claims; notice requirement discussed)
King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, 139 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (inspections only in response to complaints do not necessarily establish notice)
Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (prior occurrences and complaints can support constructive notice)
Medicus v. Upper Merion Township, 475 A.2d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (multiple incidents in short period can satisfy notice)
City of Washington v. Johns, 474 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (repeated incidents and municipal response can establish notice)
Rooney v. City of Philadelphia, 623 F. Supp.2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (multiple prior complaints supported notice; not analogous where complaints were absent)
DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 542 A.2d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (government-caused alteration of drainage can create notice)