| Show about water from kane co news salt lake city april 4 1924 F brown john mr jr town attorney g kanab utah dear sit sir your letter of march 24 in hichi which you ask my opinion on oil them thu following folloN question is at hand I 1 who is liable for the construe i ti tion lon and maintenance of proper I 1 crossings over ditches that cross the streets and sidewalks within the corporate limits in answer to your question oll I 1 I 1 first direct your attention to the i provisions of section 2813 of the compiled oni piled laws of utah 1917 1 which reads as follows owners Owner sor or users of canals or orl I 1 ditches which now are or may bl be 1 hereafter constructed across iny any I 1 public highway are required to restore such highway to as good and safe condition as it was before such canal or ditch was constructed by building a bridge or such other suitable crossing as may be determined by the board of county commissioners ners or the supervisor A failure to construct and keep in ill repair such bridge or crossing as and when required by the board of county commissioners shall bo be deemed a misdemeanor provided that nothing in this chapter shall prevent the county from keeping keepin g bridges and crossings in repair after they have been accepted by the board of county conkity commissioners sio ners it seems to me that the reason ingin the foregoing statute could be applied with equal force to the situation presented by your question I 1 think the rule of law to be applied in the instant case may be stated to be that if a private party or corporation digs or constructs a ditch or can canal al across a highway or street for their or its own benefit I 1 they or it are charged with the duty of maintaining the bridge or crossing for in such a case the benefit is to the builder and not for the public and the public for such let act could have traveled the solid road the builder having created the necessity for the bridge or crossing must be held bound to properly supply that necessity and hence henc e he is bound to lo maintain anil and repair the same of course where the bridge or crossing is a public utility and is by the public and is is not made necessary by the act of the person or persons who built it a different rule would apply and in such a case acceptance by the public would be presumed and the builder would not be responsible for the maintenance of it that would also be the rule where the public authorities expressly adopt a bridge or crossing constructed by individuals vi duals generally genera lly speaking hower ever it may be said that where a i private corporation or party digs a ditch bitell or canal across a highway or street for its 0 wn own benefit and builds or constructs a crossing or bridge over it the builder is charged with the duty of maintain ing the same the foregoing I 1 believe fully answers your question yours very truly HARVEY harar y H iluff attorney general |
