New Search
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> streets, it certainly is foreseeable that anytime City crews <br /> excavate a public way there is a foreseeable risk that the crews <br /> could damage someones underground facilities. Because of this <br /> - ` - ` - risk and the ease with which the City can obtain a locate by <br /> franchisees and municipal utilities, the City is at risk if it <br /> damages another's facilities without calling for a locate. <br /> Certainly there are times when emergencies require prompt action. <br /> Part of that action should still be the call for a locate, but in <br /> such an event the risk of damaging another's facilities must be <br /> balanced against the nature of the emergency, issues of public <br /> safety and whether the City has acted reasonably. Because the <br /> City has historical files for street -cut permits, the standard of <br /> foreseeability may be higher than if the City had no such record. <br /> Certainly, depending upon policy decisions regarding record <br /> preservation and retrieval, the degree to which the City can be <br /> held to a higher standard may be moderated. <br /> Since the City's regulation has long required underground <br /> facilities be lower than 30 inches, if the City damages someone's <br /> facilities that are buried in a more shallow trench, there is a <br /> basis to assert that damage was unforeseeable or that the City <br /> acted in a reasonable manner and therefore would not be respon- <br /> sible. Further, the failure of the facility owner to comply with <br /> the 30 inch regulation may raise the degree of contributory <br /> negligence sufficiently high as to provide a full defense for the <br /> City. One caution should be noted, however, because the original <br /> 6 <br />