Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve9930
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.
|
Steve Duke is exposed no matter what scenario you paint because an attorney, any attorney will go after Duke energy no matter what and draw them into a lawsuit. why because they are a big target (lots of $$$$$ to be had). Duke has some defense if they put up a fence but if they remain neutral or quiet on the subject a plaintiff attorney will argue that they have no claim of trespassing etc because they were lax in expressing their policies of protection against this attractive nuisance called a substation. Can't one envision the plaintiff attorney's argument now....Ladies and gentlemen of the jury this monolith of greed owning an instrument of death had the arrogance..... Bear in mind the requirements are greater burden in the case of attractive nuisance because well its an attraction
So from Duke's point of view this is both a public relations nightmare and a potential liability issue they need to effectively manage. If I was on their Board the decision would be an easy one and the implementation post haste. I wish I could say it ain't so but thems the facts