New Search
CITY ATTORNEY — CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> plaintiffs. This analysis does not preclude determinations that <br /> the defendant acted reasonably and therefore enables the defendant <br /> to avoid liability, nor does it prevent a public defendant such as <br /> -- <br /> the City from asserting discretionary immunity. It does substan- <br /> tially reduce the defendant's ability to dispose of a tort claim <br /> as a matter of law and affords plaintiff's broader access to jury <br /> determination of the facts surrounding the foreseeability of the <br /> risk, the feasibility and cost of avoiding the risk and the <br /> reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. <br /> HISTORY AND BACKGROUND <br /> The requirement that a person or a public obtain a permit <br /> before doing work in a street has been with the City for a very <br /> long time. The original requirement for permits first occurred in <br /> 1925 (Ordinance No. 4774) which were codified in the 1955 Edition <br /> of the Eugene Code and again in Chapter 7 of the 1971 Code. The <br /> requirement for franchisees to obtain street cut permits began in <br /> 1923 (Ordinance No. 3424). Further, the requirement to place <br /> underground facilities in the public way 30 inches or deeper has <br /> been in existence since 1914 (Ordinance No. 1567) and consistently <br /> a part of the city laws since that date. <br /> The reasons for this legislation are primarily to insure <br /> safety for the traveling public, plus an effort on the City's part <br /> to shift the burden for any injury /damage to those who engage in <br /> the construction activity in the street (Eugene Code Section <br /> 7.297). Also the permit provides a record for the City to use to <br /> 3 <br />