The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments March 10 on whether the city of Festus is entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging a failed fire hydrant connection caused property damage, with the case turning on both sovereign immunity and whether disputed facts remain.
Martin Strong, who lives in Festus, sued the city after a vehicle struck a fire hydrant in front of his house, damaging the hydrant and underground piping. Strong alleged a polyurethane gasket at a joint connecting the hydrant line to the water main failed, causing a high-pressure leak that damaged his property.
He alleged city workers were attempting repairs before the leak and argued their work could have contributed to the failure. His suit included claims of inverse condemnation, negligence and res ipsa loquitur.
The city argued the case should not proceed, contending it is protected by sovereign immunity because the hydrant system is part of a governmental function tied to fire protection.
Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the city’s summary judgment motion, and the parties disputed whether genuine issues of material fact remained, including where the leak originated and whether the city’s work played a role. The Supreme Court later issued a preliminary writ directing the lower court to vacate that ruling and enter judgment in favor of Festus. The city is now asking the justices to make that order permanent.
Festus was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Koehler of McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer in Town & Country; Strong was represented by Sean W. Westhoff, an attorney in Festus.
Koehler told the court the summary judgment record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and that the failure occurred within the hydrant system itself, which he argued is fully protected by sovereign immunity.
“Governmental immunity … is the rule, not the exception,” Koehler said. “All of the infrastructure that was below grade is used to fight fire” and is necessary for the hydrant to function.
He also argued the city’s repair work did not reach or disturb the failed gasket and that crews had no notice of a dangerous condition.
“The excavated hole was dry when the city workers initially left the work site,” Koehler said, adding that if there had been a leak, “they would know that there’s a dangerous condition.”
Chief Justice W. Brent Powell questioned how sovereign immunity applies to Strong’s inverse condemnation claim, noting such claims are rooted in constitutional protections.
Koehler acknowledged the issue is less clearly defined in case law, saying he had “looked very hard” but had not found authority reconciling inverse condemnation claims with governmental-function immunity in this context, adding that such claims more commonly arise in cases involving water mains or sewer systems.
“There’s different ways that that the court has determined … taking inverse condemnation, but … some of those are based upon negligence … when you have a sewer pipe or a water main repair, that is the statutory limited waiver,” he said. “I’ve not found a case that reconciled … inverse condemnation and the governmental function of duty.”
Arguing for Strong, Westhoff told the court the case cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage because key facts remain disputed.
“This case presents contested issue of fact on causation, location and timing,” Westhoff said. “We believe these facts set the stage for reasonable disputes over where the failure is manifested and what activities preceded it.”
Judge Zel M. Fischer questioned Westhoff on what evidence in the summary judgment record supported his contention that the leak was at or near the water-main junction.
Westhoff pointed to testimony from a city worker, who testified that the water that hit Strong’s house came from the water main.
“We believe these facts set the stage for reasonable disputes over where the failure is manifested and what activities preceded it and what activities contribute to that signaled risk … We’ve got testimony … that we knew it was going to blow. We knew there was a problem with that gasket that’s in there,” Westhoff said. “Now our (argument) is that … it is, in fact, notice – enough notice to … let the city know the danger condition that was there, which eventually manifested.”
Powell asked Westhoff to address whether sovereign immunity can bar an inverse condemnation claim.
Westhoff argued it cannot.
“I’d argue that constitutionally … the citizens of … Missouri are guaranteed that if the government takes their property through nuisance … then they’re entitled to compensation” regardless of if it’s a government function, he said. “The Constitution guarantees me that this state won’t take our property without compensation, and I don’t think that there’s a way to immunity on top over that.”
Westhoff also raised concerns about missing evidence, arguing the city discarded the failed gasket and connection.
“We’ve never got to see the actual item. They had the actual item … then they got rid of the actual item,” he said, arguing the absence of that evidence should weigh against the city.
In rebuttal, Koehler maintained the record contains no evidence of bad faith in the disposal of the components and reiterated that the undisputed facts show the leak originated within the hydrant system, not the water main.
The case is State ex rel. City of Festus, Missouri v. The Honorable Joseph Rathert, Case No. SC101184.
