As the mayoral race continues to heat up in Roswell, a pending lawsuit against the City of Roswell and others may add a crucial twist to the mix of already contentious issues...
As the mayoral race continues to heat up in Roswell, a pending lawsuit against the City of Roswell and others may add a crucial twist to the mix of already contentious issues. It stems from a house fire that occurred last year. The home was razed to mere ashes in a “keystone cops” ordeal where hydrants didn’t work, hoses didn’t pump and fire trucks crashed into each other at the scene.
WHO’S ON FIRST?
Questions linger. Was the dry hydrant actually tested? Has the City properly inspected and maintained water supply lines that feed hydrants within the City? Does the City have proper insurance to cover liability for failing to maintain these basic public services?
These are the many questions that Robert and Lori Cloaninger will be contemplating this election especially after they watched in horror as their home burned to the ground in February of 2008 even though a fire hydrant was directly located in their front yard. Why? The hydrant and water mains below did not produce water.
Despite efforts to resolve the matter, the City has taken no apparent steps to assist the Cloaningers or to facilitate their now transient life style through temporary housing. Why? “Sovereign Immunity.” The City has taken the position that they are immune from responsibility based on a recent Court of Appeals decision of April 6, 2009. The Court held that a municipality is absolutely protected from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, for any actions or omissions of firefighters during an emergency or for the inoperability of hydrants during a fire, as a matter of “public policy.” As a result, all legal theories of any kind brought by an injured party are barred in this context.
COURTS ABSOLVE CITIES
Such a broad interpretation has not stopped the Cloaningers from bringing suit. Their lawsuit, filed by attorney Kurt R. Hilbert, Esq., seeks to challenge the Court of Appeals ruling and distinguish its applicability. The lawsuit asserts that if this principle is applied in all cases, it “provides no process for obtaining just compensation and provides no remedy to Plaintiffs.” In essence, the lawsuit argues that the Court of Appeals decision allows a municipality to create and enforce a “policy and custom of conscious indifference to a known risk of harm to all inhabitants of the City of Roswell” without any checks and balances or remedy. The lawsuit argues that citizens, who contractually pay for such public utility services and for the comfort of knowing that the services are being performed and that insurance exists to cover defects in their utility products, should have a remedy. The lawsuit further seeks to have the City of Roswell’s policy and custom scrutinized under federal law – as this issue is one that affects all inhabitants of cities like Roswell.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
At the heart of the issue, and which may surface as an election topic, is whether the City can or should escape responsibility for its alleged failure to inspect and maintain water utility products within the City, and whether the City has or should have proper insurance coverage for injured citizens in such events. “What happens if a life was lost?” Hilbert asks. “The Court of Appeal’s decision says the City has no responsibility. This cannot be a correct statement of the law nor public policy in this State and should scare every resident in this state. Simply put, how do you know that water is in your hydrant and that you are safe?”
Such public policy and insurance issues may make their way on the agenda for the next debate.
Labels: City of Roswell, Mayor, Roswell, Roswell City Council
# posted by
Brian Vanderhoff @ 7:28 AM
