Opinion ID: 867601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comparison with legislative intent

Text: ¶ 27 Nor do we believe that the legislature intended differently. Nothing in the sparse legislative history of the Underground Facilities Act indicates any intent to enact a statute of superseding cause. See Minutes of House Committee on Economic Affairs, March 5, 1973; Minutes of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Commerce and Labor, April 5, 1973. In the Senate committee, an APS representative explained the provisions of the bill as intended to provide safe working conditions and prevent the injuries and deaths that are occurring. Senator Mawhinney said he would support the bill because of his concern regarding people involved in accidents. In the House committee, a telephone company lawyer stated that the intention of this bill is to require individuals who are excavating to make inquiries of the utility. There is nothing in the minutes of either committee to suggest that the Underground Facilities Act was intended to transfer all liability for fault to the negligent excavator and leave an owner generally immune from answering for its own negligent conduct. ¶ 28 In its supplemental brief, APS argues that the legislative history of the Underground Facilities Act and its amendments supports the exclusion of comparative fault principles. APS notes that the legislature established a study commission on underground facilities [13] whose task force [14] was to consider and report back, inter alia, on issues concerning liability for damages to facilities and delay. Respondent's Supplemental Brief at 16-17, quoting 1988 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 232, § 5(B)(2). The legislative history is minimal but somewhat informative and, contrary to APS's contentions, supports the application rather than exclusion of comparative fault principles. For example, one study commission subgroup was asked by a contractors' organization to identify those items requiring legislative action which will equitably identify responsibility for facility damage. Minutes of Joint Legislative Study Commission on Underground Facilities, Attachment 2, November 14, 1988 (emphasis added). If anything, this evinces an intent for the responsibility for line damage to be fairly apportioned among those responsible. Moreover, the Ad Hoc Blue-Stake Underground Study Group issued an interim report describing its discussion of liability issues, including the necessity to determine the [r]esponsibility of each party and how to administer comparative negligence.  Interim Report (H.B. 2061 [15] ), November 14, 1988, at 2 (emphasis added). ¶ 29 Thus, it appears from the legislative history that those both knowledgeable and concerned about the Underground Facilities Act may have assumed that comparative negligence would be applied and were conscious that they must equitably apportion responsibility for line damage. ¶ 30 APS finds it significant that the study group recommended, and the legislature agreed, not to alter the liability and indemnity provisions despite UCATA's enactment. However, the interim report explains why the group recommended the liability provisions not be changed: Because there are so many variables involved in liability issues, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to list in a statute. The consensus was liability issues are addressed appropriately in the present statute. Id. ¶ 31 We do not read this as a recommendation that comparative negligence not be applied but as an acknowledgment that it would be next to impossible to adequately address all liability issues in a statute. In fact, the section on liability had already been altered. In the Underground Facilities Act as originally passed in 1973, only the excavator was liable. However, the first time the Underground Facilities Act was amended [16] in 1981, the owner was also deemed liable. [17] This indicates recognition that both parties could be at fault. ¶ 32 This recognition, combined with the references to comparative negligence and equity, implies that the sections of the statute were to be read together and fault applied proportionately, rather than one violation superseding another. Moreover, UCATA, with its comparative negligence system, was enacted after the Underground Facilities Act and on its face was intended to apply across the board to all types of tort actions, with a few specific exceptions, none of which is applicable to this case. If the legislature had intended to make an exception for this type of action, we have no doubt it would have said so when it passed the comparative negligence statute.