Laserfiche WebLink
mm) in height and shall be sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. <br />3306.5 Barriers. Barriers shall be not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) in height and shall be <br />placed on the side of the walkway nearest the construction. Barriers shall extend the entire <br />length of the construction site. Openings in such barriers shall be protected by doors which <br />are normally kept closed... <br />3308.1 Storage and handling of materials. The temporary use of streets or public property <br />for the storage or handling of materials or of equipment required for construction or <br />demolition, and the protection provided to the public shall comply with the provisions of the <br />applicable governing authority and this chapter. <br />Attractive Nuisance Case Law: <br />There is considerable case law regarding "attractive nuisance" in Minnesota. I believe if the County <br />and the City of Orono allows heavy equipment operation in a recreational area used by children and <br />families they are a significant risk of a lawsuit. Most case law cites Mn Supreme Court Case: <br />GIMMESTAD v. ROSE BROTHERS CO. INC., 194 Minn. 531 (1935). <br />My understanding of law is at best sketchy, but the law generally holds that if an activity (in this case <br />heavy equipment ) is in or near a recreational zone used by children and families (such as a public <br />access), the city or county should know or reasonably anticipate children will be present or will <br />wander into the equipment -operation area. They are especially vulnerable to lawsuits since the <br />"remedy" could be easily achieved by requiring fencing or monitoring the site. <br />https://minnesota.lexroll.com/gimmestad-v-rose-brothers-co-inc-194-minn-531-1935L <br />utm_sou rce=chatgpt.com <br />Citation from Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 419, 54 S.Ct. 487, 491, 78 L. ed. 882, 887. In <br />the Best case, from which these quotations are made, the court held [syllabus, 78 L. ed. 882, 883]: <br />"The owner of a wharf, unfenced, close to the street, and with a barrier partly down, upon <br />which children are attracted to play by piles of sand unloaded thereon, may be held liable <br />for the death of a five -year -old child who, while playing there, fell through a hole and was <br />drowned." And there, as here, if the persons in charge of the property [291 U.S. 419] "had <br />reason to anticipate that use, there was a duty to take reasonable precautions either to <br />prevent it or to keep" the premises in such shape and state of repair that children would not <br />be exposed to the danger incident to such use. <br />209 <br />