Laserfiche WebLink
51 Interior Dec. 286 <br />(Cite ae: 151 Interior Dec. 286, *305, 2000 WL 1740340, **16 (D.O.I.)) <br />Page 16 <br />story portion of the house. Id. While he believed that the evidence did not <br />categorically point to a specific cause for the damage, considering the lack of <br />other possible causes and the fact that damage had been occurring since the <br />dining took place, Attwooll concluded that "surface movements due to coal mine <br />subsidence are a likely reason for the damage." Id. at 7. <br />Reins, who inspected the house on April 24, 1995, agreed with Attwooll that <br />~he damage was "fairly recent" and mostly on the eastern two-story portion of <br />she house. (Letter to Appellants, dated May 23, 1995, at 2.) He also noted that <br />the damage was likely due to a rotation of the east and south walls downward and <br />away from the rest of the house, since the consistent (rather than random) <br />Q'rientation and pattern of the damage supported that conclusion. Id. at 4; <br />Memorandum to Appellants, dated June 30, 1995, at 3. While, like Pendleton, he <br />had not been able to inspect the foundation underlying this portion of the <br />Rouse, Reins nevertheless stated: <br />~ The locations, geometry, and orientation of the distress within house <br />strongly suggest that the east and south walls are rotating away from the rest <br />f the structural framing. It appears that the foundation systems beneath these <br />~wo walls have subsided. The magnitude of the subsidence does not appear to be <br />particularly substantial. However, even a fairly subtle movement of the <br />foundation would be magnified in the movements and rotations of the framing and <br />gearing walls above. <br />If the residence was a conventional, wood-framed house, these relatively <br />small movements might have been easily accommodated without significant <br />~istress. However, adobe construction is inherently incapable of resisting or <br />accommodating such *306 movements and will, in fact, provide a clear and <br />pronounced manifestation of even minor subsidence. <br />Letter to Appellants, dated May 23, 1995, at 4.) He later explained the absence <br />f any evidence of distress in the foundation on the basis that the foundation <br />and the overlying adobe structure had moved in tandem, but that the distress was <br />~xhibited only in the relatively fragile adobe structure and not in the <br />oundation: <br />[B]ecause of the lack of tensile capacity and reinforcing within adobe <br />tructures, they will quickly and sometimes dramatically exhibit cracking and <br />separation distress if the original building geometry is distorted. Unlike <br />conventional reinforced concrete, steel or timber structures which have an <br />Zbility to resist, bridge or redistribute loads, and thus minimize visible signs <br />~f distress, adobe structures immediately tell you if so~ething is moving. <br />**17 (Memorandum to Appellants, dated June 30, 1995, at 3-4.) In his May 23, <br />'995, letter to appellants, Reins stated at page 4 that he agreed with the <br />pinion of the Tatums' other consultants that mine subsidence was the "likely <br />reason for much of the damage to the house." In his subsequent June 30, 1995, he <br />stated at page 3: <br />Apparently, the underlying premise which prompts Mr. Pendleton to reject the <br />.lotion that subsidence has occurred is that there is no known foundation <br />distress. In our practice we routinely observe foundation systems that exhibit <br />Io significant distress despite pronounced (many inches) heave or settlement. In <br />phis particular instance we estimate that the foundation movements are not <br />particularly substantial. As such, the foundation system for the house is simply <br />Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works <br />