Sidewalk OrdinanceWorkshop.ppt

Sidewalk OrdinanceWorkshop Presented by Tim Schmal Burton,?Volkmann Schmal Marcus Beverly ABAG PLAN Corp. April 14, 2005 Los Altos, CA Objectives Provide attendees with a summary of the Problem History, and Latest Developments in the techniques used to make those persons responsible for maintaining sidewalks liable for damages that result from failure to maintain. The Problem Varies by member Aging infrastructure Poor street tree selection Rural feel v. developed areas Lack of documented inspections Budgets strained for repairs Losses are frequent and add up Most claims are within member deductible Sidewalk Claims for PLAN 850+ Total Claims $4.5 Million Paid 14% of All Claims (2nd highest cause) 7% of All Paid (5th highest severity) $7,782 Average Paid ‘97-04 Record Amount in 1998: 75 @ $580,000 Recent Case $250,000 + defense Cause of Loss Comparison The History Common Law – adjoining property owner had no duty to maintain sidewalks and therefore no liability for mere failure to maintain. Could be liable for other acts of negligence. Streets and Highways Code §5610 (1941) – property owner has duty to maintain adjacent sidewalk and can be liable to the municipality if it is forced to repair or maintain. However, owner not liable for damages to the public. The History Williams v. Foster (1989) – city of San Jose took position that their ordinance, modeled on SH Code §5610, imposed liability to the general public on property owner if damages resulted from failure to maintain. Trial court agreed, appellate court said no, but stated liability could be shifted if spelled out in the ordinance. San Jose updated their ordinance in response. The Latest News Gonzales v. City of San Jose (12/6/04) – first appellate case regarding new ordinance. Trial court said ordinance pre-empted by state law. San Jose appealed. Appeals court reversed – state law only addresses liability of public entities and employees, and dealt only with owner’s liability to th