New Search
5/3 ■■■■ � 7141" 1y�.:� •C34ICe/li:. (i0 (67 � <br /> ..— / ., <br /> f:•v <br /> 1 CITY OF EUGENE ( r <br /> INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br /> 30,i/ <br /> Date May 7, 1975 <br /> Ta Ke atch, Maintenance Engineer <br /> Public Works Department <br /> From John L. Franklin, Assistant City Attorney <br /> Subject GRAVEL ON SIDEWALKS <br /> You have asked whether the City of Eugene can potentially be <br /> held liable for its failure to remove unpaved alley gravel from city <br /> sidewalks. <br /> The answer to your question is yes. As an abstract matter, the <br /> city is potentially liable for injuries sustained by sidewalk users <br /> from gravel on sidewalks. The city is not immune from suits in this <br /> area. Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or 485 (1970). <br /> Further, the city Charter provides that the city is responsible <br /> for the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of its <br /> sidewalks. Chapter VII, Section 48, Paragraphs 29 and 51; Chapter <br /> IX, Section 50. <br /> In most situations involving the repair or maintenance of sidewalks, <br /> the abutting property owner is, by charter and ordinance, charged <br /> with the responsibility of repair or maintenance. These duties are <br /> to be performed by the abutting property owner under the direction and <br /> supervision of the city. Eugene Code, Sec. 7.375. In this case <br /> involving alley gravel on sidewalk aprons, however, it does not seem <br /> likely that the city will be able to hold the property owners responsi- <br /> ble for keeping the sidewalk free of gravel. This is the case because, <br /> technically, there are no property owners abutting sidewalks at the <br /> end of alleys. I understand, for example, that the city has traditionally <br /> repaired sidewalks at the end of alleys itself. The same would <br /> - 1 - <br />