The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-04707 6. In the course of said work, Defendant, acting through his agents, servants and employees, was operating a caterpillar Model 963 tract front-end loader with an operating weight of approximately 40,000 pounds and was backfilling loose fill materials into a 2-3 fqpt space between the edge of the excavation and the foundation walls of the dwelling. 7. In the course of said work, Defendant acting through his agents, servants and employees, operated the front-end loader so as to position it parallel to the foundation walls within a distance of 2-4 feet from said walls, during and fOllowing the completion of the backfilling work. 8. Said operation and positioning of the front-end loader during the course of the work greatly increased the flexural tension against these walls. 9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's improper backfilling techniques as above described, Plaintiffs' residence sustained sudden, immediate, serious and extensive damage to the foundation walls which consisted ofl a. Significant bowing of the front foundation wall with a medium-width, open crack in the seventh horizontal mortar joint and a large-width, open crack observed in the ninth horizontal mortar joint above the basement floor; 2 b. significant inward bowing of the rear foundation wall for most of its length with lateral deflections of 1-2 inches at mid-height and a medium-width, open crack in the ninth horizontal mortar joint running the length of the wall and stepping up to the top of the wall. near each end1 c. Right aide wall cracking in the third horizontal mortar joint below the top of the wall which stepped up and down at each end of the wall1 and d. Water infiltration. 10. The coat to repair the aforesaid damages caused by the improper and defective backfill work perfor.med by Defendant is $51,130.00. A true and correct copy of the estimate to repair the damage is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 11. As a further result of Defendant'S improper and defective backfill work, plaintiffs I a. Required the immediate services of a professional engineer to determine if their house was structurally sound and habitable at a cost of $350.001 b. Were delayed in approval of their mortgage which resulted , in additional expenses of $1,068.001 c. Expended 55 hours of labor at $lO.OO/hour in cleaning up debris and water damage, which further necessitated the purchase of two shop vacuum cleaners1 and 3 d. Suffered the loss of $500.00 worth of personal property which was being stored in the basement at the time of sald incident. 12. The negligence of Defendant Livingston, acting through his agents, servants and employees, which was the direct and proximate cause of the damages sustained to Plaintiffs' home as set forth above, consisted ofl a. Failing to inspect the construction of the foundation walls and determine the structural integrity of same prior to commencing the backfilling work; b. Failing to determine that the construction of the foundation walls would not withstand parallel backfilling within close proximity to said walls by the 40,000 pound front-end loader; c. BaCkfilling in close proximity to the foundation walls in a parallel manner which Defendant knew, or should have known, would place excessive stress on said walls, causing them to bow inward and crack; d. operating a 40,000 pound caterpillar front-end loader in such proximity to the foundation walls so as to cause them to bow inward and crack; 4 '4. Failing to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in the performance of the backfilling of the foundation walls of Plaintiffs' residence so as to avoid structural damage to same; f. Employing individuals whom Defendant knew or should have known were inexperienced or otherwise incapable of safely operating a front-end loader under the circumstances, and of competently backfilling around residential dwellings, such as Plaintiffs'; g. Failing to instruct his agents, servants and employees in the proper manner of backfilling residential dwellings, and in particular, in the proper manner to backfill Plaintiffs' dwelling in light of the construction of the foundation walls; and h. Failing to supervise his agents, servants and employees to ensure the backfilling performed at Plaintiffs' residence was done in a manner so as not to damage the foundation walls of said structure. 13. Plaintiffs were in no way contributorily negligent or in any way responsible for the damages to the foundation walls of their home, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Earl L. Livingston doing business as Dillsburg septic and Excavating Company in an amount in excess of $20,000, or in excess of that 5 . J ~ - ~+ ,,~ ~ ~ ~~ " U"> -.) +- en ~~ cl!. eX 0.... - ~ Q :J". u,r:;:.--i.' ~ .... ~~c'~ N ~eC.):'i. 0 - ~~r:. <;:j ~ () - I ...:,w..., ~ f"lC'.;jiA 0 .~~ n.. u:?; I ~ _,1.1,,1:-- ~ ! ' V) h. ~I"'U .t) 5i 11 I-~u.. ~ .... OJ .... ~L) U Qt. , V"'I ~ '\ , ." " I 0> ~ \.< ::l . .0 U III ~ J ~>'J HI~ t' '0-1 ~ . ~ ~~ E r;l. C .1I ~ ~ 2 E ~~! ~ . < - III i j :.: ....0 .ou ~ 1 . .... 015 III '00> \.< '::I . ~ ~ ~ g~ P III . '0-1 ~ ~.j.I o < .-l III o ~ U 00 '0-1 .-l ~ .j.I > ."" > ~ III ~ III ...,~ '0-1 ~ o>u U U .t: ~ l< .0-1 ~z U .o-I~ ~ .... > 0 '0 .0-1'0 III ~~ .... ~ ..:I~ (/j ., ~ .1I I . \.< ltl . ..:IU ::l III '0-1 0 I " ~ .-l.j.l >< ~ ~ \.<r;l. ..~ t'oo oJ. 0 .1I1l1 .j.I ~ - c ~(/j < EXHIBIT A 6. In the course of 5/lid wot'k, Defendant, acting through his agents, 8ftt'vantB and employees, waB operating a Caterpillar Hodel 963 tract front-end loader wUh an opet'ating weight of approximately 40,000 pounds and was backfilling loose fill materials into a 2-3 foot space between the edge of the excavation and the foundation wal18 of the dwelling. 7. In the course of said work, pefendant acting th~ough his agents, aervants and employees, operated the front-end loader so /lIl to position it parallel to the foundation walls within a distance of 2-4 feet. from said walls, during and following the completion of the baCkfilling work. 8. Said operation and poaitioning of the ft'ont-end loader. dur:ing the courae of the work greatly increased the flexural ten8ion against these walls. 9. A8 a direct and proximAte reBult of Defendant'S improper baokfilling techniques as above described, Plaintiffs' residence sustained sudden, immediate, serious and extensive damage to the foundation walla whioh consisted Ofl a. Significant boWing of the front found/ltion wall with a medium-width, open oraok in the seventh horizontal mortar joint and a large-width, open crack observed in the ninth horizontal mortar joint above the ba8ement floorl 2 b. SignificAnt inward bowing of the reAr found/ltion wall for most:. of it:.s length with lAteral deflections of 1-2 inohes at mid-height and a llIedium~width, open orAck in the ninth horizontal mortar joint runnin~ the length of the wall and stepping up to the top of the wall near each end; c. Right side wall oraokingin the third horizontal mortar jo.!.nt below the top of the wall whioh stepped up and down At eaoh end of the wall; and d. Water infiltration. 10. The cost to repair the Aforesaid damages oAused by the improper and defective baokfill work performed by Defendant is $51,130.00. the estimate to repair the ("VI tJ),;..J d~ge i8 attaohed hereto 11. As a further result of Defendant's .i.Jnproper and defeotive baokfill work, plaintiffs: a. Required the immediAte services of a professional engineer to determine if their house was sl:ruo!:urll-lly sound and habitAble At a cost of $350.00; b. Were delayed in approval of thei:r: mortgAge which resulted in additional expenses of $1,068.001 o. Expended 55 hours of laoor At $lO.OO/hour in cleaning up debris and water d~ge, whioh further necessitated the purohA8e of two shop VACuum oleaners; and 3 oJ e. Failing to exeroise a reasonable degree of skill and oare in the perfOrmAnce of the backfilling of the foundation walls of Plaintiffs' residence so AS to Avoid structural damage to same; f. Employing individuals whom Defendant knew or should have known were inexperienced or otherwise incapable of Bafely operating a front-end loader under the ciroumstences, and of competently backfilling around residential dwellings, such llS plaintiffe', g. Failing to instruot his agents, servllnts and employees in the proper manner of backfilling residential dwellings, and in particular, in the proper manner to backfill Plaintiffs' dwelling in light of the construotion of the foundation wal161 and h. Failing to supervise his egents, Dervants and employees to enDure the baCkfilling performed at plaintiffs' residence was done in a manner so as not to damage the foundation walls of said struoture. 13. Plaintiffs were in no way oontributorily negligent or in any way responsible for the damages to the foundlltion wlllls of their home, as Det forth llboVe. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demllnd judgment against Defendant Earl L. Livingston doing business liS Oillsburg septio and Exoavating Company in an emDunt in excess of $20,000, or in excess of that 5 exhibit B .., ,,,> '- 6; c. f.: .~ ;"'.:1- ,-. .. IlJ~~ - !.")-) - U. ...... '.) ::~ (" J...., ~.: -. ~~; . ~ ;;: m . U! fil~ - I .!(: G:;,' C". , ,,) - . ~ '1 t.l... , .. . :_J I '. ~ l:') I. , C'l U - ._.~:.!,::f~.~.; '~_Li:!"}; ,- "'..- !,')Wi{ """"l'~.~l ,:.,;;;~~~ ", "'j}" .,~;,'itl~ """"f'd', ':"::,:j,;t~~{~ " l';"l,,~, . " . "rim - !\;' ~:i:~ " " 7.> In ".- " I,{; , > i'~" ..- \.tJ(~ ;'''-1 -!.~ , , ~ (J ~.' ,-: " '",' ~' " '''0 Lo" \'.l.. '" j t. .. 0',,' G'\" - '! .,'.' ,,'J , , 11""'. \i~" I:' ,::\ I l;,..... " 1.0 ':-~I u i"f', >J' ".- (:) .- r>- j.:.-: .~ U J~. ~ U' ., ( )_.~ '._11 p'" 0 :.... s~ . i::j r!,,: ,.::) tn , ~ lu '. . , !: .. iiJ 17;1 : It:1... 'u ." ". . .., .' '-' U , U