Since learning of the lawsuit Three Tomatoes filed against the city, state and everyone else they could think of over the floods in 2008 and 2009, I keep thinking about all the stories the Herald has run - I wrote at least one of them - about how outdated and inadequate Rutland's water and sewer system is. I also keep remembering how the guys in public works will haul out that cross-section of corroded pipe and show it to anyone who is interested.
I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems like that's a case for negligence on the city's part. They can't claim they didn't think there were serious problems with the system.
Even though he declined to comment on the case when I first spoke to him about it last week, I decided to put that specific question to City Attorney Andrew Costello, who said there is a difference between knowing about a problem and being able to do anything about a problem.
"I think you have to look at what's responsible to repair," he said. "Does the city have the money to fix every inch of sewer system in the city? Not by a mile."
We've all heard about corporate bean-counters deciding that settling a certain number of lawsuits is more cost-effective than issuing a recall, so I asked Costello if, in the face of unaffordable repairs, the city still has an obligation to downtown businesses it can fulfill by reimbursing them for their losses when the system fails.
"I'm sure they will try to make that argument," he said.
Comments