Two Oklahoma appellate decisions—Spencer v. City of Bristow and Crestwood v. City of Oklahoma City—highlight the legal and operational risks cities face when sewer maintenance is reactive or poorly documented. In both cases, courts reversed summary judgments for municipalities, finding that questions of notice and reasonable care should be decided by a jury.
Case Summaries:
Spencer (2007): A homeowner experienced two raw-sewage floods in 2005. Although the City of Bristow acknowledged responsibility for sewer maintenance, it had no formal program and relied on responding to complaints. Testimony showed recurring backups and root issues near the property, yet no preventative measures were taken. The court ruled that a jury should determine whether the City used reasonable care and whether it had actual or constructive notice of defects.
Crestwood (2019): A 2017 sewer backup flooded the basement of Crestwood Vineyard Church with Category 3 water, requiring extensive remediation. Oklahoma City argued it lacked “reasonable notice” because there had been no complaints in five years. However, evidence showed the City used a complaint-based maintenance approach and lacked records of proactive inspections or repairs. The court found factual disputes about whether the City knew—or should have known—of system defects through ordinary diligence.
Key Legal Principals for Cities
Sewer maintenance is a proprietary function, meaning municipalities can be liable for negligence or nuisance.
A duty of reasonable care requires cities to maintain sewer lines in workable condition.
Constructive notice is broadly interpreted: cities are expected to discover problems through routine inspection, not merely through customer reports.
Comparative negligence applies, but cities remain responsible for their share of damages.
Common Maintenance Pitfalls
Exclusive reliance on complaint-driven responses.
Lack of documented preventative maintenance.
Failure to employ available tools such as cameras or root cutters.
Insufficient plans for recurring issues like root infiltration.
Implications & Best Practices
Cities should adopt and document grid-based inspection and cleaning programs, use technology for early detection, maintain detailed maintenance records, train staff on proactive care, and ensure policies align with GTCA requirements. Regular audits and emergency response plans further reduce risk and support legal defense.
Bottom line: Courts expect proactive sewer maintenance. Cities that document and implement preventative practices protect public health, limit liability, and reduce long-term costs.
