Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
Steve in all due respect I think when it comes to Duke Energy the cat's out o the bag
|
What I know about the subject neither Walmart or Duke wants the liability. The Stonecrest POA in the beginning got the two sides together and then backed away to let them hash it out. There used to be updates on the negotiations from our POA. What happened to open this can of worms again? It went cold for a long time. Then there was a group that did a lot of volunteer work to improve the path. Did this bring this to forefront again? They moved the improvements as close to the Walmart fence as possible. The reason I thought was that Duke did not want people that close to the substation. If the Duke legal department believes some how they legally now have the liability by defacto they will close that path. I would have expected an internal memo that indicated anyone discussing this made it perfectly clear that people that used the path were trespassing. I've been involved with things like this in the past and as long as no one says something wrong, people just turn a blind eye. Once they believe it legally becomes a problem then Duke will have no recourse but to act on it. This is why I indicated do not talk to Duke and ask questions about the path because if some one gives out the wrong info its over. If I were Duke I would put a sign that indicates this is Duke Property and the path can be used at your own risk. Does not totally exonerate them from liability but gives them an argument should some one take them to court over the an incident. Guess I'll just have to see what's up when I get back down South. Not happy with any of this. Is there a new No Trespassing Sign put up by Duke that indicates no trespassing violators will be prosecuted? If so then you use that path and would be subject to arrest if they also informed the local law enforcement they want it up held. Closing this path has no positives associated with it.