Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 7. (Cont.) <br /> <br />3. Direct protection <br />a. Impact spreading walls <br />b. Stem walls <br />c. Vegetation barriers <br /> <br />PHYSICAL MITIGATION METHODS FOR <br />ROCKFALLS <br />1. Stabilization <br />a. Excavation <br />b. Benching <br />c. Scaling and trimming <br />d. Rock bolts/anchors/dowels <br />e. Chains and cables <br />f. Anchored mesh nets <br />g. Shotcrete <br />h. Buttresses <br />i. Drainage <br />j. Dentition <br />2. Protection <br />a. Rock-trap ditches <br />b. Catch nets and fences <br />c. Catch walls <br />d. Rock sheds or tunnels <br /> <br />MODIFYING THE CONSEQUENCES <br />OF LANDSLlDING <br /> <br />Modification of the consequences of Iandsliding involves <br />assisting individuals and communities in preparing to <br />survive and recover from hazard occurrences. This in- <br />cludes determining liability, increasing public awareness <br />by information dissemination and disclosure, and <br />redistnbuting economic losses over time and among a <br />larger segment of society through insurance. Insurance, <br />tax adjustments, assessment districts and tort liability <br />are explained in greater detail in Appendix 2. <br /> <br />Uability <br /> <br />The consequences of Iandsliding on individuals and <br />governments can include liability for losses generated by <br />these events. Thus, homeowners, builders, developers, <br />architects, engineers, governmental entities and many <br />others are threatened with increased liability. The threat <br />of litigation may act as a deterrent to poor quality <br />geologic or engineering reports, improper design, poor <br />construction, improper grading, faulty hillside <br />maintenance practices, and governmental approval of <br />plans for development of hazardous sites. <br />Establishing liability is the legal means developed by <br />society to recover damages, such as bodily injury, <br />medical expenses, death, emotional stress, and <br />economic loss, resulting from the improper activities of <br />another. <br /> <br />Sutter and Hecht (1974), supplemented by McGuire <br />0985), list six types of lawsuits that are brought by in- <br />jured parties against those responsible for their losses: <br />1) Fraud - a former owner purposely advises a pur- <br />chaser that a house is "in perfect condition" <br />when, in fact, cracks (caused by recent ground <br />failure) have been disguised by repair and fresh <br />paint. <br />2) Negligence - an owner changes the natura1 <br />drainage of his land causing a landslide on adjacent <br /> <br />property. <br />3) Strict Liability - a developer and seller of lots <br />improperly cuts, fills, and/or compacts earth to <br />create a building site. <br />4) Breach of Warranty - parties to a real estate <br />sales agreement insert a fa1se guarantee of soil <br />and geologic stability. <br />5) Failure to Comply with Regulations - a <br />developer or subdivider fails to perform the <br />geologic investigations required by a state statute <br />or local ordinance, or fails to carry out <br />recommendations. <br />6) Public Negligence - a city grading or building in- <br />spector fails to perform periodic inspections of lot <br />grading or building construction to ensure that the <br />work complies with the municipal code. <br /> <br />A seventh can be added: <br />7) Professional Negligence - an engineering <br />geologist and/or geotechnical engineer fails to <br />recognize a hazard or to follow good practice, <br />makes an error, or omits vital data. <br /> <br />As people settle and develop in closer proximity to <br />existing or potential landslide areas, the premise that a <br />hazard is an "act of God" is becoming unacceptable as a <br />defense against liability. As our understanding of natural <br />processes and disasters increases, the conditions under <br />which such events occur are more easily traced to <br />specific actions and actors. The work of the Association <br />of Bay Area Governments 0984) on the liability of <br />businesses and industries for earthquake hazards and <br />losses is applicable to landslides, particularly those trig- <br />gered by seismic events. The Association concludes that <br />the legal defense that an earthquake is an "act of God" <br />may only work in two very limited situations where the <br />event: <br />1) was of such type or size as to be wUoreseeable and the <br />business did not act negligently with respect to dealing with <br />a foreseeable event; and <br />2) was foreseeable, and !be defendant took aD reasonable ac- <br />tions to prevent harm. but nonetheless damage still <br />occurred. <br />According to Thnk 0983), "Recent court decisions <br />have identified the developer or his consultants as <br />primarily responsible for damage due to land failure." <br /> <br />33 <br />