Paterno v. State
87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 754, 74 Cal.App.4th 68 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For inverse condemnation liability to attach to a public entity for damage caused by the failure of a flood control project, the plaintiff must prove that the failure was caused by an unreasonable plan of design, construction, or maintenance, not merely by negligent execution of a reasonable plan.
Facts:
- In February 1986, a major storm caused severe flooding along the Yuba River in Northern California.
- A levee in Linda, which was part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, was under the jurisdiction of the State of California and maintained by Reclamation District 784.
- The plaintiffs, led by Paterno, alleged the levee was structurally deficient due to its sandy composition, rodent burrows, an abandoned buried pipe, and the nearby excavation of a gravel pit (the Speckert Pit) which could channel water under the levee.
- Prior to the flood, state inspections had consistently given the levee the highest rating of 'outstanding,' most recently in November 1985.
- On February 20, 1986, after the river's peak had passed and water levels were receding, a citizen observed 'boils'—signs of water seeping through the levee—on the landside.
- Paterno presented evidence that levee patrols, which could have detected and addressed the boils, had been prematurely released by the District.
- Hours after the boils were reported, the levee collapsed, causing catastrophic flooding that damaged approximately 3,000 homes and displaced 24,000 people.
Procedural Posture:
- Property owners, represented by sample plaintiffs Paterno, sued the State of California and Reclamation District 784 in state trial court on several theories, including inverse condemnation and dangerous condition of public property.
- After a six-month trial, a jury found in favor of the defendants on the dangerous condition of public property claim.
- The trial judge, deciding the inverse condemnation claim separately, found the defendants liable for a taking and awarded damages.
- The trial court also granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on Paterno's nuisance claim.
- The defendants appealed the inverse condemnation judgment, and Paterno cross-appealed the jury's defense verdict and the directed verdict on the nuisance claim to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a public entity liable under an inverse condemnation theory for property damage resulting from a flood control levee failure when the failure is caused by negligent maintenance or operational errors, rather than a deliberately adopted, unreasonable plan of maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Morrison, J.
No. A public entity is not liable for inverse condemnation based on negligent maintenance; liability requires proof that the damage resulted from an unreasonable government plan. The California Constitution's 'public use' provision requires a deliberate act by a public body, which means liability for shoddy maintenance attaches only if the entity's adopted plan of maintenance was itself unreasonable. Damage resulting from the poor execution of a reasonable plan or from the routine operational negligence of employees does not constitute a 'taking.' The court reasoned, citing Bauer v. County of Ventura, that an injury must be the result of dangers inherent in the public improvement as deliberately conceived, not dangers arising from negligent operation. Paterno's theory, which conflated violations of maintenance standards with a flawed plan, was incorrect. The case must be retried for the plaintiff to prove the existence of an unreasonable plan that caused the damage and for the trial court to apply the reasonableness factors established in Locklin v. City of Lafayette.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for inverse condemnation in cases involving the failure of public flood control projects. It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs by cementing the distinction between a flawed governmental plan and ordinary operational negligence. By requiring proof of an unreasonable 'plan,' the court prevents takings liability from becoming a substitute for tort claims, which are often barred by governmental immunity. The ruling forces litigants to focus on the policy-level decisions of public entities rather than the day-to-day actions of their employees, thereby protecting public entities from strict liability for any and all employee carelessness in the maintenance of public works.
