|
3345 REVIEW DENIED When building improvements to public property, the state had a duty to anticipate the consequences of its obstruction of drainage and may be liable for its breach of that duty; the design of a public improvement was found as a matter of law to be one that a reasonable public employee could not have approved and therefore design immunity did not attach; a public entity may be liable in inverse condemnation for failing to properly maintain a drainage channel, even if its conduct was not unreasonable, if the conduct resulted in an unreasonable burden on persons whose property was thereby damaged.CitationARREOLA v MONTEREY COUNTY (Obstructed Flood Plain) 99 CA4 722 [See: CA Const I, 19; Breidert v So Pac 61 C2 659; Rowland v Christian 69 C2 108; Locklin v City 7 C4 327, T/AT 4/94]
|
|
