## Facts

- Pacific Bell operated a telecommunications facility in San Diego adjacent to a municipal fire hydrant connected to the City’s water system.
- A corroded cast-iron pipe servicing the hydrant burst, releasing water that flooded Pacific Bell’s facility and caused roughly $170,000 in damage.
- The pipe was owned and maintained by the City; the pipe would not have burst absent corrosion.
- A nearby vehicle struck the hydrant, placing stress on the already-corroded pipe and precipitating the failure.
- Pacific Bell alleged the City operated an aging cast-iron water system without a preventive maintenance plan for corrosion, effectively replacing pipes only after failure or service changes.
- Pacific Bell claimed such pipe failures and resulting damage to adjacent property were a foreseeable consequence of the water system as designed, constructed, and maintained.
- The trial court entered judgment for the City, concluding statutory immunities under the California Tort Claims Act barred recovery and that Pacific Bell failed to show the City’s maintenance program was unreasonable.

## Issues

1. Whether immunities under the California Tort Claims Act, including Government Code § 850.4 (fire hydrant immunity), bar a claim for inverse condemnation based on damage caused by a burst pipe supplying a fire hydrant.
2. If Tort Claims Act immunities do not apply, whether inverse condemnation liability for such damage is strict, or instead requires proof the City acted unreasonably.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the City.
- Tort Claims Act immunities, including Government Code § 850.4, do not bar inverse condemnation claims.
- The City was liable in inverse condemnation because the damage was attributable to the City’s public water system as a public improvement; Pacific Bell was not required to prove the City acted unreasonably.
- The case was remanded for recovery of inverse condemnation damages consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Inverse condemnation arises from the California Constitution’s requirement of just compensation for property “taken or damaged” for public use; statutory tort immunities cannot defeat that constitutional duty.
- Tort Claims Act immunities, including fire protection and fire hydrant immunities, apply to tort liability and do not preclude inverse condemnation causes of action.
- A public entity is liable in inverse condemnation when a public improvement, as deliberately designed, constructed, or maintained, is a substantial cause of private property damage.
- Where the loss is a foreseeable consequence of an intentionally operated public improvement, inverse condemnation may operate in a strict-liability manner without requiring proof of unreasonable conduct.
- Cost-spreading supports allocating the financial burden of damage from public improvements to the public entity (and ultimately the community) rather than leaving it on a single affected owner.

## Conclusion

The court held that flood damage from a corroded municipal water pipe servicing a fire hydrant supported inverse condemnation liability and that statutory immunities under the Tort Claims Act, including fire hydrant immunity, could not bar constitutionally required compensation.


Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal. App. 4th 596, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 897 (Ct. App. 2000)