> > Sec. 7-1. Sidewalk Policies.
> > The following shall constitute the general sidewalk policies of the City
> > of Moscow:
> > A. It shall be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to
> > maintain in good repair and safe condition and to keep clear of all snow,
> > ice and debris, the sidewalks which are adjacent to the owner's property
> > including the portion of the sidewalk which runs to the middle of any
> > adjacent public alley.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but it is this a defensible position? Couldn't the city
> just as easily mandate that the "adjacent property owner" remove the snow
> from the street? What if someone slips on ice that hasn't been removed from
> a sidewalk--can they sue the "adjacent property owner"? What happens if
> someone has a heart attack shovelling snow from the sidewalk because the
> city made him? (Maybe I have the makings of a lawyer?)
I'm not one either but i happen to know a couple -- and the answers are:
a) yes. The city has the power to declare things to be nuisances.
b) yes, again. In fact the traditional way of doing things -- all
you reaganauts listening -- was to require the adjacent landowner not
only to clean but to pave and maintain them as well. Then somebody got
the idea that perhaps not only the landowner benefited and decided that
perhaps everyone ought to be taxed and -- well we know where that has
led. i think that we should move as rapidly as possible back to requiring
landowners to pave, maintain, and clean the streets in front of their
land. get things back to where they ought to be.
c) if someone slips because you have failed to comply with the law
and keep your walkd clean means that you are likely to be liable for the
injury. a general principle of tort law is that the violation of a safety
statute is itself negligence and thus subjects the violator to liability.
d) send flowers. the city is not liable.
> Maybe the ordinance isn't aggressively enforced because it is intended to
> encourage people to remove snow from the sidewalks, but can't really
> require them to.
no -- it isn't enforced because police seldom enforce laws that are
generally unpopular. the city clearly has the constitutional authority to
take the stps set out in the ordinance: having it done and charging the
landowner for the costs -- and: it has the further power to sell the
property to recover its costs. imagine how that would look in the "daily
snooze": "widows land sold to pay for snow removal." the mayor anc ity
council may not be very good politicians -- but it doesn't take a rocket
scientist, as they say.
if you are interested in becoming a lawyer, lois, give me a call. i might
be able to have a word with the admissions committee.
Dale Goble
who *is* a city resident
and who religously (how else) shovels the imaginary walks on his also
unpaved street