Opinion ID: 2078729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cracked Brick Walls

Text: With regard to the cracked brick walls, the McNallys argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the alleged dangerous condition because the city stated only that collapse was possible and that this possibility was not based upon any specified evidence. [12] In support of this contention, the McNallys point to Denker's statement that the structural integrity of the masonry should be evaluated by somebody that is professionally educated and trained to do so. The McNallys argue that the city essentially shifted its burden of proof to the McNallys to disprove the mere allegation of structural damage. The McNallys also argue that, regardless, the city was generally without authority to require the opinion of a structural engineer at the McNallys' expense. The city, in contrast, asserts that the demand for a structural engineer's professional opinion was not in the context of the inspector's uncertainty that a dangerous condition existed, but only with regard to the details of how such condition should be repaired. We agree and find that the evidence was sufficient to support the Board's finding that the cracked brick walls constituted unsafe structures in violation of § 48-71(1). Referring to various pictures of the exterior of the duplex, Denker explained to the Board that it was his opinion that the cracks appeared structural and that there was a possibility of partial collapse. Denker further explained that the loose masonry could fall onto somebody walking alongside the property. A structural engineer was required to set forth the danger with more precision and to specify what would need to be done to fix it. The city points out that Omaha Mun.Code, ch. 48, art. I, § 48-43 (2003), provides in part: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the code official shall have the authority to require tests to be made as evidence of compliance at no expense to the city. As already set forth, an unsafe structure under § 48-71(1) of the Code includes one where partial or complete collapse is possible.  (Emphasis supplied.) There was sufficient relevant evidence to support a violation of § 48-71(1). We find nothing in the record to indicate that it is illegal for the city to impose the burden on the homeowner to employ the proper experts in the repair of a proven violation. The district court was thus correct in affirming the Board's decision that the cracked mortar constituted a violation under the Code and its decision to uphold the requirement for a structural review by a registered engineer or architect.