Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />contacted the individual who installed the replacement fence on <br />July 27, with construction beginning July 30. <br />Prior to beginning installation, the individual installing the <br />fence was given instructions as to proper anchoring and support <br />requirements, along with diagrams outlining the procedure. During <br />the initial stages of installation, the individual was corrected <br />concerning anchoring and support for the fence, with some 30 feet <br />of fence being installed by myself to demonstrate the proper <br />method. Due to the workload at this time, and what appeared to be <br />a lack of need for direct supervision, the installation of the <br />fence was not checked after the first few days. During the <br />installation period, the individual responsible for the <br />installation checked in to keep us informed, and he was asked <br />several times if he was installing the fence per the diagrams he <br />was given. As he answered in the affirmative, concerns over the <br />installation were not raised and the fence was completed on <br />schedule. A letter dated 14 August was sent to Mr. Berry informing <br />him of the completion. Again, due to the workload associated with <br />vegetation monitoring and reclamation activities, the site was not <br />visited until 16 October during Mr. Berry's inspection. <br />CYCC admits to an error in judgement concerning the lack of <br />direct supervision during the later phases of installation, but we <br />do not feel that this lack of supervision constitutes negligence on <br />our part, given the nature of the questions asked of the person <br />during the period. <br />