Shame on whoever is not taking responsibility for throwing boards on the sidewalk in front of the Hairport on July 17, 2006.
I and members of my family have tried to ascertain who did so. My aunt, Pauline Webb, fell over those boards, and the EMS was called to assist. (This was during the time that all the reconstruction was going on downtown to beautify the city).
Police were dispatched to the scene of the fall.
To quote the police report: "It appeared that Mrs. Webb had been walking north on Summit Street on the east side of the street. She evidently stepped on two plywood boards . . . and tripped. Mrs. Webb fell face first onto the concrete and struck her head on the sidewalk, breaking her glasses . . ." (Her hearing aid also fell apart).
The police report states: "Cy McCormick of Claver Construction said that none of them put the boards there nor does his company use those types of boards in their construction . . . ."
The police report: after contacting the Arkansas City Chamber of Commerce, they learned who was doing the work on the old Burford Theater. . .
I talked to the owner/manager of the Hairport, and she said she did not place the boards there. . .
Interestingly, we submitted to the city a copy of my aunt's bills regarding the direct result of this fall. The total was $1,148.06.
At the time my aunt submitted the bills, my aunt said she was told, "The city does not own a sidewalk, and is not liable."
If the city does not own the sidewalk, then why did city officials lease a part of the sidewalk to Mozitti's so they could have an awning?
When my aunt's hearing was so much worse, she consulted her hearing specialists again, and she had to undergo surgery to have fluid around her eardrum removed.
Her balance has somewhat improved, but her ability to get around has diminished considerably since that fall. She had to have another hearing aid.
To clarify one thing: I am not opposed to Mozitti's having an awning. My point is: If the City can lease that section of sidewalk space, there must be some assumption that "The city does own the sidewalk."
Nobody is taking responsibility for this, and while family worked to replace my aunt's hearing aid and glasses, my aunt has had increased problems with balance and hearing.
So tell me, who should be responsible?
My aunt has had to have considerably more assistance in her home, and I and other members of my family are doing this to make sure she has the support services she needs.
I just think it is downright shameful that people lie to keep from taking responsibility for a mistake that ended in a tragic mishap for my aunt.
Marilyn K. Flanders South Haven References: Public accident, Case No. 2006-1654
The sidewalk belongs to the property owner. The city owns the "right-of-way" for pedestrian traffic in front of the building. This allows the city to make rules about keeping it clear and safe for traffic. It also includes repairs, maintenance, and a few odd other things which the property owner is responsible.
In the case of Mozitti's the city is not leasing the sidewalk, but merely the "right-of-way".
It's a good question. I would like to know also- Because if the sidewalk is OURS then mine is off limits to EVERYONE- Don't even step a foot. Also- Arkcity snow clean up crew- Don't you even think about dumping anymore snow on our sidewalk and while we're on that get over here and clean up the sand that you guys left behind on ours, Bring lots of trash bags and shovels- Your gonna need 'em. THANKS! :)
Basically the city owns it until A. someone gets hurt. B. There is repair to be made.
I hope the city pays the bills for this and everyone can move on. She could of been seriously hurt and thankfully she wasn't.
Just try to do anything to the sidewalk in front of your house, and the city will be there ASAP telling you you can't do that because it's not your sidewalk.
Does anyone know what State laws says when it comes to sidewalks? I would think the city or the crew it hired would be liable for the fall, and they should do the right thing and pay the bill.
The sidewalk belongs to the property owner. The city owns the "right-of-way" for pedestrian traffic in front of the building. This allows the city to make rules about keeping it clear and safe for traffic. It also includes repairs, maintenance, and a few odd other things which the property owner is responsible.
In the case of Mozitti's the city is not leasing the sidewalk, but merely the "right-of-way".
Patrick McDonald
If the sidewalks belong to the property owner, then why did the City force so many people to make repairs or have the city do and charge it to the property taxes years ago? Most people were dost for at least $180.00 plus for this.
At the time this happened the city said that all side walks were to be repaired starting with those going north and south and the following year the east and west, they never got to the east and west and unfairly taxed those going north and south.
If the property owners are liable for any kind of mishap, then why does the city who say's they only have the retain a right of way care about how how the side walks are cared for throughout the city unless they actually have a financial responsibility's at stake and if so they should at least pay half of the cost for all expense's for the ladies glasses and hearing aid. Or stop stepping on the toes of local property owners!
Patrick wrote:The sidewalk belongs to the property owner. The city owns the "right-of-way" for pedestrian traffic in front of the building. This allows the city to make rules about keeping it clear and safe for traffic. It also includes repairs, maintenance, and a few odd other things which the property owner is responsible.
In the case of Mozitti's the city is not leasing the sidewalk, but merely the "right-of-way".
Patrick McDonald
So let me see if I have this right. The city doesn't own the side walk. They just have the right to tell you what to do with it, who can be on it also tell you it is in disrepair and it needs to be fixed right? But if someone trips and is injured...they lay no claim....Who had someone working and repairing a perfectly good sidewalk like what happened down town at the Hairport that day? Now refuse to take responsiblity for injury. Was it the Hairports fault the sidewalk was torn up? I don't think so as even if they didn't want the work done it would have been done anyway. Who was at fault here? Ms Webb went to the beauty shop like she has done more than likely many times in the past. SOMONE had the sidewalk torn up and in disrepair at the time. Who was that? The store owner? THE CITY? OR THE CONTRACTOR? No one wants to pay for this elder lady's injuries/damages. Granted if someone pays, that would admit guilt. So Ms Webb and her family are paying.....Ms Webb is paying with the quality of her life. And we wonder why down town is dying. I'm disgusted at them all for neglecting this woman. Shame on them...a good attorney and a civil suit would help define who was at fault that day. Too bad it would have to come to that. The days of taking responibility for actions is gone for ever, or so it seems. That is, unless you are a tax paying citizen. Maybe the city should have leased the right of way to the contractor that day so they wouldn't have been liable for injuries...wasn't that the big deal about not allowing the awning? Just wondering?????
Patrick wrote:The sidewalk belongs to the property owner. The city owns the "right-of-way" for pedestrian traffic in front of the building. This allows the city to make rules about keeping it clear and safe for traffic. It also includes repairs, maintenance, and a few odd other things which the property owner is responsible.
In the case of Mozitti's the city is not leasing the sidewalk, but merely the "right-of-way".
Patrick McDonald
So let me see if I have this right. The city doesn't own the side walk. They just have the right to tell you what to do with it, who can be on it also tell you it is in disrepair and it needs to be fixed right? But if someone trips and is injured...they lay no claim....Who had someone working and repairing a perfectly good sidewalk like what happened down town at the Hairport that day? Now refuse to take responsiblity for injury. Was it the Hairports fault the sidewalk was torn up? I don't think so as even if they didn't want the work done it would have been done anyway. Who was at fault here? Ms Webb went to the beauty shop like she has done more than likely many times in the past. SOMONE had the sidewalk torn up and in disrepair at the time. Who was that? The store owner? THE CITY? OR THE CONTRACTOR? No one wants to pay for this elder lady's injuries/damages. Granted if someone pays, that would admit guilt. So Ms Webb and her family are paying.....Ms Webb is paying with the quality of her life. And we wonder why down town is dying. I'm disgusted at them all for neglecting this woman. Shame on them...a good attorney and a civil suit would help define who was at fault that day. Too bad it would have to come to that. The days of taking responibility for actions is gone for ever, or so it seems. That is, unless you are a tax paying citizen. Maybe the city should have leased the right of way to the contractor that day so they wouldn't have been liable for injuries...wasn't that the big deal about not allowing the awning? Just wondering?????
The city did not have to lease the right of way to the contractors. It was part of the contract for them to provide safe access to the businesses. The contractors met with the community at the Chamber of Commerce each week to give updates and talk about how to provide access to the places they were working.
Maintenance and repair of the sidewalk are still the property owner's responsibility. The improvements to the sidewalk were provided because the city was able use the 77 turnback funds to leverage a grant. Otherwise any improvements would have been paid for by the owners as they had in the past. About 20 years ago the owner's got together and replaced most of the sidewalks in the downtown at their expense.
The city maintains the "right-of-way" on the sidewalks to be sure that they are properly taken care of. Not only to prevent large cracks and raised edges to prevent tripping, but also to make sure it is clear of other obstructions. Signs and products that block the way, trees and shrubs that can block the way, and a number of other things. If a "right-of-way" weren't maintained sidewalks would be almost useless. Take a walk in your own neighborhood and you can see for yourself. Complaints from these kind of problems are why the city continues to make property owners maintain their sidewalks.
Patrick,If the city is not liable for this accident that happened on the sidewalk then tell me who is liable for this incident? Plain and simple...The property owner or the construction company?
Patrick,If the city is not liable for this accident that happened on the sidewalk then tell me who is liable for this incident? Plain and simple...The property owner or the construction company?
I am not a lawyer so I can only guess. A lawyer and a little research would give the proper answer.
The contractor was primarily responsible for making the walk as accessible as possible. This being said, the pedestrians take some responsibility for walking on the known construction, a situation which I think should have been obvious, but was also well advertised. To make matters even more confusing, those boards could have been placed out by a third party, whether it was the property owner or someone else.
There could be a number of other possibilities that I am not aware of, but these seem to be the most obvious. Again, I am not a lawyer and only expressing my opinion on this. I am neither avoiding nor ducking the issue, it is just way out of my world of education or experience.
Thank you for giving me your opinion. I suppose the only action she would have is to file a civil suit to determine what percentage she is at fault, the contractor is at fault, and if a third party from the Burford may have put the boards there then they may have to take some responsibility as well. And possibly a judge could determine if the city could be held partially responsible too. Chances are she wont do this, I am not one that will take things to court either. But all involved are lucky she doesn't. Although the outcome would be interesting I am sure.
I would encourage her to take it to court and see what happens. A lot of people think that people who sue someone are just money hungry. Soetimes that may be the case, such as the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself, (and many other frivolous lawsuits) but sometimes, such as in a case like this, it would be in the best interest of not only the victim, but to the public as well... in this case, everyone else who uses the sidewalks of our fair city. Take them to court, and let's see the city defend it's right of way policy and find out if it holds up.
I would encourage her to take it to court and see what happens. A lot of people think that people who sue someone are just money hungry. Soetimes that may be the case, such as the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself, (and many other frivolous lawsuits) but sometimes, such as in a case like this, it would be in the best interest of not only the victim, but to the public as well... in this case, everyone else who uses the sidewalks of our fair city. Take them to court, and let's see the city defend it's right of way policy and find out if it holds up.
I don't see the "right-of-way" as an issue. As a matter of fact, this is a great example of why we need the "right-of-way". There was going to be a danger as there would be in any construction, the ways to make the shops accessible during that time are limited. On the other hand, if it weren't for "right-of-way" would the shop have been accessible at all.
Also, "right-of-way" is primarily for every day use. It is used to prevent a number of different problems with impeding pedestrian traffic. Whether it be skateboarders, store merchandise, signage, damaged sidewalk or a number of other things, "right-of-way" is there to protect the pedestrians, not hinder them. For a better view on pedestrian traffic ask any store owner or manager downtown.
Ok, understood now, the city doesn't want any liability that comes with the sidewalks, they just want complete control. Understood............
OK, you've taken your shot, and I probably deserve it.
Who would you prefer to make sure there is a sidewalk downtown? Do we need one? Would the business owners make sure that it was provided and maintained (just like their buildings)?
You can pick on the system all you want. You can accuse and blame me or the commission if you like, but if you want the sidewalks to look like the buildings downtown, or if you want the businesses filling them with stuff (Melyssa's Garden antiques is a good example) then we can just ignore them. If you don't care about the skateboards and bicycles downtown then the "right-of-way" isn't necessary. But you have to make up your mind which way you want it.
As far as taking the blame, it seems to depend on who is pointing the finger. Should the city pay for the responsibility of the contractor? Should the city not try to make improvements? Should an individual not be responsible for knowingly going into a construction zone? There are a lot of questions and everyone has a different answer, but the key point is, you can't have it both ways.
If you really don't like the system, get together with other people, organize, come up with a system that you do like, make sure everything is covered, then present it to the city. You may well come up with a better solution.
Ok, understood now, the city doesn't want any liability that comes with the sidewalks, they just want complete control. Understood............
OK, you've taken your shot, and I probably deserve it.
Who would you prefer to make sure there is a sidewalk downtown? Do we need one? Would the business owners make sure that it was provided and maintained (just like their buildings)?
You can pick on the system all you want. You can accuse and blame me or the commission if you like, but if you want the sidewalks to look like the buildings downtown, or if you want the businesses filling them with stuff (Melyssa's Garden antiques is a good example) then we can just ignore them. If you don't care about the skateboards and bicycles downtown then the "right-of-way" isn't necessary. But you have to make up your mind which way you want it.
As far as taking the blame, it seems to depend on who is pointing the finger. Should the city pay for the responsibility of the contractor? Should the city not try to make improvements? Should an individual not be responsible for knowingly going into a construction zone? There are a lot of questions and everyone has a different answer, but the key point is, you can't have it both ways.
If you really don't like the system, get together with other people, organize, come up with a system that you do like, make sure everything is covered, then present it to the city. You may well come up with a better solution.
Patrick McDonald
Well thank you for finally answering the question. It surely would have been easier if you would have said this the first time I asked the question. Although you answered my question with a question. And I didn't say that the city couldn't make improvements, that was not my beef at all. If everyone followed the idea of the construction being to dangerous to be around how long would down town been able to stay alive? Please tell me you weren't suggesting that Ms Webb stayed at home that day? If we all had of, it would be a ghost town as long as it took them to complete construction. I just think if you have control of the sidewalks then you have to take some responsiblity that's all.
I had no intention of suggesting that Mrs. Webb go or stay. I'm sure she was well capable of making her own decision as any of us are. I'm also sure she was already aware that there was construction to the sidewalks in that neighborhood, and most likely on that block. It had been going on for months, was in the paper and on the radio. Many people were talking about it.
The sidewalk was open for use, but there were signs, yellow tape, cones, and other markers at various points to make sure that people took notice of the construction. Were the boards there better than the open construction? Were they over unaffected sidewalk? Did they cover the whole sidewalk or were they just laying across the middle? I really don't know, nor does anyone except Mrs. Webb and the people that were actually on sight at the time.
Did Mrs Webb notice the boards and use them as a safer route across the construction? Was there no construction at that point and only boards? Were the boards there to be walked on, or were they part of the construction?
There are too many variables there for me to guess. Whose responsibility is it? It depends on what the variables actually were. Who should pay? The responsible party, anything else would be an injustice. Back to the beginning, whose responsibility?
Did the contractor not do a good enough job making it safe, or, and please don't get me wrong, was Mrs. Webb not able to be careful enough in a marked rough situation? Should the stores have had to close to protect people from coming across the sidewalk? I don't know. Maybe all of the above? I wish I could tell you I have the answer, but there is no answer until all of the other questions are answered.
I don't mean to be obtuse, there are just way too many variables for me to put any of it together.
Maybe the city should have leased the right of way to the contractor that day so they wouldn't have been liable for injuries...wasn't that the big deal about not allowing the awning? Just wondering????? 
