New Search
• <br /> CITY ATTORNEY — CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> construction of someone's facilities may have been 30 inches <br /> underground, but subsequent action by the City in excavating or <br /> constructing a street may have reduced the depth of the damaged <br /> - facilities. In such a setting the City's liability may re- emerge <br /> unless we could show the facilities were constructed before the <br /> street grade was set by the City Engineer. <br /> Because of the City's long standing practice to require <br /> street cut permits, we do not believe the 1986 changes to Chapter <br /> 7 have significantly changed the City's risk exposure. In fact, <br /> the changes clarify the City's intent to seek redress from a <br /> permitee if the City incurs liability because of the permitee's <br /> actions or facilities. <br /> As you can see from the foregoing, the analysis of liability <br /> is very fact intensive and may be moderated by existing agreements <br /> between the City and those who have facilities in the public way. <br /> Answer to Specific Questions: <br /> To specifically answer the examples listed on your memo: <br /> Anytime the City crews make a street cut without first calling for <br /> a locate there is high risk. Emergent circumstances or unlawfully <br /> placed shallow facilities may provide defenses, but we believe the <br /> risk is high because the foreseeability of damage to others is <br /> great. <br /> When the City calls for a locate and others respond or fail <br /> to respond, the City's risk is substantially reduced. When doing <br /> a locate, if the City or a utility inaccurately identify the <br /> 7 <br />