PITTSBURGH – A state court judge has overruled preliminary objections from the City of Pittsburgh’s Water and Sewer Authority, in a lawsuit from a pair of Pittsburgh landlord-tenant neighbors who alleged that it defectively designed and later failed to repair a deteriorating storm sewer culvert – which caused storm water runoff to flow into the plaintiffs’ residences.
Sandra C. Hill and Alan Ricketts first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 7 versus the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiff Hill is the lawful owner of a duplex (multi-family home) on property located at 8882-8884 Frankstown Road, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235. Plaintiff Ricketts is a tenant who resides in the subject property,” the suit said.
“The defendant owned and controlled the storm sewer system including but not limited to drainage pipes, culverts and structures installed throughout the City of Pittsburgh; The municipal authority was responsible for the design, construction, inspection, maintenance and repair of the storm sewer system at or near the subject property, and said storm sewer and related structures were under this defendant’s care, custody and control.”
The suit added that over a long period of time, the defendant allowed the culvert or inlet adjacent to the subject property to deteriorate and eventually collapse, blocking the inlet and preventing the surface water from flowing into the storm sewer system – in addition to failing to repair the structure, or notice that the collapsed inlet with the manhole cover formed an artificial ramp that caused storm water from the roadway to flow onto plaintiff Hill’s property.
“On July 11, 2019, during a heavy rainfall, storm water from the road surface diverted by the aforesaid damaged inlet flowed directly onto the subject property, causing substantial structural damage to the subject property and the personal property inside the basements of the residences. The defendant had no easement or legal right-of-way from the plaintiffs to direct storm water across the subject property,” according to the suit.
The PWSA filed preliminary objections to the complaint on Jan. 15, charging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and failed to state its claims with proper sufficiency.
“In order for plaintiffs to recover against the PWSA for tort claims, they must establish that the PWSA had ‘actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances of the dangerous condition’ prior to the date on which the incident occurred,” the objections stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts to establish that the PWSA had the requisite prior notice of any alleged defect in any facilities over which the PWSA exercises ownership or maintenance responsibilities.”
Moreover, the utility claimed that the complaint did not properly connect it to the events in question.
“The complaint contains general allegations relating to the damages that plaintiffs claim to have sustained in connection with the incident, without providing sufficient detail as to the PWSA’s alleged involvement in the incident, notice of an allegedly dangerous condition in advance of the date of the incident, or the PWSA’s alleged inspection of and/or responsibility for the inlet in question,” the objections said.
UPDATE
In an opposition brief filed on Feb. 12, the plaintiffs refuted the defense’s rationale and countered that the plaintiffs had not only shown actual damage to the property in question, but that it will be for a jury to decide whether there is any merit to the damage being repairable.
“It will be for the plaintiff to submit evidence at trial concerning whether its property is repairable or whether it is permanently damaged,” per the plaintiffs’ brief.
“It will be for a jury to determine whether it believes that the damage is permanent, or partially repairable and partially permanent. Accordingly, defendant’s attempt to bar the plaintiffs from pleading any and all damages is without merit and the preliminary objections should be denied.”
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan D. Hertzberg overruled the defendant’s preliminary objections on Feb. 22.
“It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant, The Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority’s preliminary objections to plaintiffs’ complaint in civil action are overruled,” Hertzberg said.
For counts of negligent control of real estate and trespass to property, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of this jurisdiction and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Margaret M. Egan and Alexander J. Jamiolkowski of Egan & Jamiolkowski, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Lindsay S. Fouse, Danny P. Cerrone Jr. and Mark F. Nowak of Clark Hill, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012351
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com