Facts

The plaintiffs are owners of real property situated in the City and County of San Francisco in the neighborhoods commonly known as Mission Terrace, Inner Mission, Outer Mission, Excelsior and South of Market. These neighborhoods share a storm draining and sewer system maintained by defendants the City and County of San Francisco. A significant number of the components of the storm drainage and sewer system were constructed over 100 years ago, and had deteriorated over time. Over the past decade, the city had repaired and improved its system "upstream" of the plaintiffs' properties, having the direct effect of channeling even greater amounts of water and sewage faster into the areas surrounding plaintiffs' properties at a time when no significant "downstream" improvements had been performed. Defendants observed the system failures and significant damages incurred by many of the plaintiffs due to storm events in prior years, and represented that it was taking the necessary steps to upgrade or fix the system to avoid future failures. Despite defendants constructing new treatment facilities, during significant rainstorms, the system could not handle the combined volume of storm water and untreated sewage flowing into the treatment facilities. The discharge gates at the wastewater treatment facilities still needed to be opened during significant rains to allow raw sewage to be discharged into San Francisco Bay. Plaintiffs filed an action against defendants, including contractors who were hired by the city and/or the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to perform various work on the storm drainage and sewer system.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that, as a proximate result of the failure of the storm drainage and sewer system, plaintiffs had suffered significant damage to plaintiffs' private property. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants owned and controlled the storm drainage and sewer system, and by its acts and omissions, defendants caused the storm and sewer system to become and remain in a dangerous and defective condition, which in its operation was hazardous and dangerous to plaintiffs and other residents of the city. Plaintiffs further asserted that the storm and sewer system created a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm to persons using the storm and sewer system and the properties adjacent thereto. Plaintiffs alleged that, despite knowing of this danger, defendants negligently and carelessly failed to remedy the dangerous conditions, and had further failed to warn of the dangers, allowing plaintiffs to be exposed to dangerous levels of raw sewage and mold, and allowing plaintiffs' property to be damaged. Plaintiffs argued that defendants have a duty to maintain the drainage and sewer system, knew of the dangers for substantially longer than the period of time reasonably needed to implement repairs, and nonetheless failed in its obligation to maintain the drainage and sewer system. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants' acts or omissions constituted a nuisance. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants' acts or omissions caused the diversion and trespass of water and sewage onto plaintiffs' properties.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendants contended that plaintiffs' complaint was barred because defendants had government immunity as to plaintiffs' claims. Defendants asserted that plaintiffs had full and complete knowledge of any alleged defective or dangerous condition which existed in or upon the property, and with full knowledge of said alleged dangerous or defective condition, plaintiffs assumed any such risk to plaintiffs' safety involving the use of said property.

Result

The case settled for $3,626,444.